all the same bad people that have been pouring into the country for the 200 years prior to that EO

Haven't looked at the decision/order, but this is irrelevant. Trump's statement is wrong regardless of the substance of the decision.

Nancy Pelosi smugly stating "We are capitalists." is as tone deaf as anything anybody's said this year.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...#storylink=cpy

Most of us don't hold that position, but you're the one who made the claim in the first place, so you're the one with the burden of backing it up with a citation.

I'll give you a hint since it's clear you haven't even looked, and just made these assumptions completely blindly. "The Resistance" thread is where you will find the liberal activists' response to the Milo event. Go take a look for yourself, the post history is right there for everybody to see.

Agreed. He should be tweeting what I said but I'm wondering if questioning the judges interpretation of the law is touchy ground.

And you know this precisely How???

Jean Dixon reincarnated?

Possess soul reading skillz over the interwebz?

Do you ever think about what you write before you write it? You have zero notion about my political participation or lack thereof.

I can give you a pro tip: I didn't volunteer for the Viet Nam War when I was draft eligible :-)

Much less touchy than saying that injunctions themselves are somehow judicial overreach.

Two thirds of the posts in this thread are either from astroturfers, or people responding to these two obvious astroturfers. The legit posts in this thread are getting lost in the noise, and it's getting really hard to follow legit events.

It's pretty obvious that this is their agenda, so please stop engaging them.

Not your forum Chez, no one cares what you think here.

The first part is true.
The second part will never happen.

You use the term "virtue signaling." You are the very definition of a puppet

I know it because I'm reading your posts. The Presidency of the United States has been taken over by an idiotic fascist and will affect every single person on the planet now and for generations to come and you're worried about 30 people with no power who broke windows and set trash on fire in Berkeley.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...-days-1651105/

This is what is happening and yet a draft dodging hippie is more concerned about protests that are infinitely less destructive than the civil rights and Vietnam protests of the 60s?

Also, isn't you crowing on and on and on about being so independent and non-partisan virtue signaling in its own right? You put it in nearly every post you make

What's the original?

Do you mean, which of these is less good for Trump?

NYTimes - Bannon's Book Club

In light of the early decisions of this administration (think about the appointments of unqualified, "generally smart" people like Tillerson, Perry, Carson, DeVos, et al), the author suggests that Bannon may be overlooking the lessons of The Best and the Brightest. My scorching hot take is that he's deliberately using the book as a manual for how to create a crisis.

Well he is literally on the record saying he wants to destroy our country and government, so....

In Trump's case you have to replace "smart" with rich and/or famous. There's no way Perry gets on a list of smart. I'm not sure what puts DeVos in that category either. I guess Carson may be smart despite not sounding like it.

so the solution is that when the two parents don't want to co-parent that the woman gets custody more often because she is the one giving birth?

My hopefully-ridiculous hot take is that President Bannon wants to start a war, so he can get his puppet Trump to launch those awesome shiny nukes he's just itching to use. Not sure surgical drone strikes against known targets is gonna satisfy Bannon's blood lust when it comes to RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM.

But remember we're supposed to assume they aren't serious when Trump and Co. say things like that.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...president.html

lol bannon

I have zero burden. I am on this board at the pleasure of its owner and his agents. They may revoke that any time they please.

So you want to go on record saying the majority here doesn't advocate shutting down free speech they don't like? I'll hold "you" to it. None of you thought closing down Trump's campaign speech in Chicago was a good thing?

A moderator here certainly implied he was OK with Milo being shut down from speaking by violence:

A fellow name einbert wrote this:

Sure sounds like justification of shutting Milo down to me, even though the UC administration allowed the show to go on....

This einbert fellow also wrote:



If written in the middle of the Milo discussion this doesn't advocate taking extralegal means to 'follow your conscience', I don't know what does.