Media Renames it then spins it to fit their agenda.
"The suit alleges that a portion of Hawaii's population is now subject to:
"discrimination and second-class treatment, in violation of both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Order denies them their right to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin. And it results in their having to live in a country and in a State where there is the perception that the Government has established a disfavored religion."
My gaawd where to start ? Key word: " alleges " + The last sentence is really putting it on thick, all emotion, zero fact.
"And by disfavoring a religion, the suit argues, Trump's executive order is establishing a state religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Hawaii's economy leans heavily on tourism, and the lawsuit cites both economic and familial hindrances caused by the ban. "It is damaging Hawaii's institutions, harming its economy, and eroding Hawaii's sovereign interests in maintaining the separation between church and state as well as in welcoming persons from all nations around the world into the fabric of its society."
Again, how is that going to be proved ?
quote:
Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
If you oppose the attempts to protect America from Terror attacks
I do not oppose attempts to protect America, Hawaii, or Puna from terror attracts.
I do oppose executive actions and laws that do nothing to prevent terror attacks, but effectively and unconstitutionally take rights away from citizens living in this country.
The actions of the Hawaii attorney general reflect this reality.
You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Explain what right, exactly, is being taken away from a "citizen living in this country".
Posts: 14,122
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Perhaps you haven't heard of 911, Kobar towers, USS Cole ad infinitum. Does "ISIS" ring a bell?
Perhaps nobody has heard of the Crusades?
The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period, especially the campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean with the aim of recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
Perhaps you haven't heard of 911, Kobar towers, USS Cole ad infinitum. Does "ISIS" ring a bell?
Perhaps nobody has heard of the Crusades?
The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period, especially the campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean with the aim of recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
The Crusades where entirely proper to drive the invading horde back out of Europe and taking back the territory the invading Islamic Armies had taken by force. They had invaded all the way to modern-day Austria before being driven, by force, out.
Islamic terror is nothing new, for it is as old as Islam itself, as it is MANDATED by Islam itself.
Get info from more than one source Eric.
A counter to your FBI 90%
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/...rcent.aspx
Posts: 14,122
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
The Crusades where entirely proper to drive the invading horde back out of Europe and taking back the territory the invading Islamic Armies had taken by force.
Wouldn't it then be equally "proper" for Islamic "terror" to drive the invading horde back out of the Middle East?
Maybe if we all pretend hard enough, we can justify our actions, and imagine that this is all somehow Hawaii-related.
What, exactly, invading horde are you referring to? And how, exactly, do the forces you refer to amount to an invading horde? We take no territory, we liberate it from evil forces. We liberated Kuwait, and we liberated the Iraq people from their oppressive ruler.
Nobody here wants it Hawaii Related ever but why not cut it off at the pass ?
Posts: 11,089
Threads: 756
Joined: Sep 2012
"It is damaging Hawaii's institutions, harming its economy... Again, how is that going to be proved ?
Your first question should be, "how will the executive order prove to be effective in doing what it claims to do?" It can't. It was poorly crafted and should never have been signed.
Humanity is up against the greatest threat to civilization ever, and has been for over 1,000 years. It is coming to a head in our time. It came to a head previously in 1095
Well then, I guess by that logic it has to happen, and soon, if only because we are long overdue.
Have any good stock market tips, or earthquake predictions as well?
what right, exactly, is being taken away from a "citizen living in this country"
Citizens have already been prevented from traveling, they have been unlawfully detained, and their freedom of religion has been impeded. According to the Constitution, all citizens should be treated equitably and fairly. Due to this executive order, that's no longer true for one group of citizens. The executive order creates guilt by association in the eyes and minds of people unable to see the difference between a Muslim and a terrorist. Although in reality it's guilt by non-association because the people affected are not terrorists.
That is what the Hawaii attorney general is trying to correct.
You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 403
Threads: 26
Joined: May 2012
Well, this topic has gone about as expected. My two cents is that:
1) the proposed executive order doesn't demonstrate a sound nexus between the supposed harms and the proposed benefits; otherwise, Saudi Arabia would be included;
2) any laws that are premised on ones religion are unconstitutional, and from the context of everything the President has said and done for the last year, my personal opinion is that I think this law is based on religion, even if it casts a wider net than that;
3) Hawaii does seem to have bigger fish to fry, and it's not as if a state with much larger funds (e.g. California) wouldn't have made this same lawsuit.
Leilani Estates, 2011 to Present
|
