Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51112131415161718 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 176

Thread: Trump winning

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    6,273

    Default

    Beo, it's just like the Anti-Gun nuts. They want all guns banned and when they are being assaulted wish they had a gun and call someone whom does like Leo!! Lol
    "The First Gay President", L'dMAO!! "Peace can ONLY be achieved through SUPERIOR FIREPOWER, STOMPING LIBS and CARPETBOMBING"!!

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC, Misery-- It's Missouri- you have to 'Show Me'...
    Posts
    9,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Wildcat View Post
    If he takes it to SC and it's a 4-4 the lower court ruling would be upheld I believe.....resend and rewrite.....
    Allow those with green card to be excluded and 'do over'...Not great but has much better chance....
    leave the gun... take the cannoli...

    In times of strength prepare for times of weakness...

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Where no man has gone before.
    Posts
    2,137

    Default

    This has been interesting watch y'all debate this.

    Honestly, its been interesting watching the world debate this. There has been a lot of misconceptions put out there about what exactly is going on. The press have been stoking the fires of opposition against Trump, and Trump losing his cool in this whole process hasn't helped either.

    --

    Everyone here realizes that nothing regarding the actual substance of the EO has been touched by a court yet....right?

    All they are doing is ruling on the procedural aspects of the injunction issued by the District Court. And the District Court just issued a preliminary injunction at the request of a State AG.

    Literally there has been no substantive win or loss on the entire situation. So claiming victory or suggesting one side is defeated thus far is HIGHLY premature.


    And the greatest irony of all this is that Congress can pass a bill eliminating the one section of the U.S. Code in question, have Trump sign it, and everything with the EO as written would be completely without issue.
    Last edited by RazorEdge95; 02-10-2017 at 09:23 AM.
    Do not pray for easy lives, pray to be stronger men.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorEdge95 View Post
    This has been interesting watch y'all debate this.

    Honestly, its been interesting watching the world debate this. There has been a lot of misconceptions put out there about what exactly is going on. The press have been stoking the fires of opposition against Trump, and Trump losing his cool in this whole process hasn't helped either.

    --

    Everyone here realizes that nothing regarding the actual substance of the EO has been touched by a court yet....right?

    All they are doing is ruling on the procedural aspects of the injunction issued by the District Court. And the District Court just issued a preliminary injunction at the request of a State AG.

    Literally there has been no substantive win or loss on the entire situation. So claiming victory or suggesting one side is defeated thus far is HIGHLY premature.


    And the greatest irony of all this is that Congress can pass a bill eliminating the one section of the U.S. Code in question, have Trump sign it, and everything with the EO as written would be completely without issue.
    Oh yes it will be an issue too, Razor, a B-I-G issue....liberals will REALLY raise hell then. Only way to silence those SOBs is kao tao to'em and let'em have EVERYTHING they want JUST the way they want it. Trump could give'em a million dollars and they'd bitch 'cause he didn't pay the taxes on it for'em.
    Last edited by beowulf; 02-12-2017 at 11:16 AM.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    I think a new EO is coming tomorrow. Smartest thing he could do.

    I can't believe he hasn't said anything about North Korea, maybe he will this week since he spent the weekend with Japan's PM.

    Personally, I'd love to see him destroy their next attempted missile launch right on the Launchpad. Put that weeble wobble Kim dung Puke in his place and send a message to Iran at the same time.
    Probably a good thing I ain't President.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    TN mainly, on the road alot.
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    How does eo solve that problem? Do you folks think before ya text?

  7. #147
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alredneck View Post
    How does eo solve that problem? Do you folks think before ya text?
    Hell no Al , thinking gets me in too much trouble. A new EO takes away the present court case, and hopefully the lawyers have got their heads on straight now and can write one that can't be overturned by the courts. But I would love to hear your opinion .

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    RazorsEdge95 and others...

    Wow!! ...I had not thought this through sufficient to arrive at what you are stating here...but if it is in fact so...

    All they are doing is ruling on the procedural aspects of the injunction issued by the District Court. And the District Court just issued a preliminary injunction at the request of a State AG.

    Literally there has been no substantive win or loss on the entire situation. So claiming victory or suggesting one side is defeated thus far is HIGHLY premature.

    The term for this kind of switcheroo...is legal....

    Herein...legal verses lawful...

    They are arguing form..ie..procedure/form/appearance...verses substance...what the law was intended to accomplish.

    Procedure/appearances = Legal


    Substance = Lawful


    You can find this defined I Blacks Law Dictionary under legal verses lawful.

    This is a very convincing switcheroo...on those not trained in it..and I have heard lawyers say they are the same thing when I know they are not.

    In legal....only the i's need dotting and the t's crossed...nothing to do with what the law was intended to accomplish. Only the form of the law need be maintained...or the appearance of the law.

    This is a far cry from what a law was intended to do or accomplish.


    This is also the same with today's popularity of "Emotions" run amok. This gives the "Appearance" of legitimacy when often it is no such thing..it is only an emotionally run shakedown. Unless you are trained to spot it ....emotions can often be used to make someone else feel guilty ....when no trespass or violation has taken place... no law broken.

    This is why I am often so hard on emotions...emotions can be made to look legal..like a legitimate grievance....when it is not. Emotions are often a cover or smokescreen for a shakedown....or as I often am want to call it ...bondage...herd mentality.

    Train yourself to spot and understand legal verses lawful..and a lot of other things will become clear.

    Is Fox News covering this to the publics understanding??

    Wonder if the White House and their lawyers know this pattern going on here about legal verses lawful??? To many lawyers out here only trained in legal and not trained in lawful.


    Any of you ever heard of Legal Tender verses Lawful Money???? There is a difference ..a big difference.



    Thanks RazorsEdge 95 for bringing this to my attention as to what is happening here in this business with the EO.

    Orangetom

  9. #149
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,641

    Default

    Correct me if I'm wrong Tom, but what you are essentially arguing is " intent " of the law versus " letter " of the law ?

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    No Bambam....

    Correct me if I'm wrong Tom, but what you are essentially arguing is " intent " of the law versus " letter " of the law ?
    I don't think so here.

    I am describing the "appearance" of the law verses the intent or substance. I believe the intent or substance is what the law was supposed to be about....the goal of the law..

    The "appearance " of the law..is exactly that ..the "Appearance." That the forms are kept..not the intent or the substance but Legal only. But on the surface to the untutored or uninitiated it would "Appear" that the law was served...because all the forms are kept...the "i's ' dotted and the "t's" crossed.


    Imagine your woman....you giving her only "The Appearance" of love or commitment instead of the real thing??

    Imagine this in reverse?? She giving you only the "Appearance " of love or commitment?? Not give you the real thing.


    Now imagine this as applies to the law...legal or lawful???


    Thanks,
    Orangetom

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •