Husker Red Til Dead

The state is what created the rules for even having businesses and markets. Without the govt setting up and enforcing those rules, there would be no business. Part of those rules is equal treatment. You have the choice to follow the rules and have a business or not. No, humans have traded and bartered since the beginning of time.

So say muslim cab owners wont let drunks in their cab ( happens in Minn a lot) or gay print shop owners wont print westboro baptist posters. Should they be forced to provide those services? I don't think so. That court ruling was and is out of their bounds, they say what the law is, not make law. A problem we've had for sometime now. The 1st protects flag burning. It's disrespectful to those that have bled and died in service of that flag. Disrespectful yes, illegal no. Same with refusing service on religious beliefs. I see it as authoritarian govt overreach when the state tells private business to whom and when they can conduct business.

Well...I'm conservative and at one time was a Republican. I believe the Republican party has lost it's way and isn't something I can vote for. But...your post is out in la la land on the subject. This would be akin to me claiming Obama is Muslim and wants install Sharia law in the US and Democrats have been planning this for 40 years when they first brought him from Kenya as a child prodigy to ultimately destroy America. Except, there are stories from CNN and other sites where Republicans are actually talking about doing many of the things I mentioned. Legalizing religious based discrimination: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/17/senate-republicans-zeroing-religious-freedom-bills/ Burn the American flag, go to jail: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/index.html So you are for the first amendment ..but not really? The first article is pro-14th amendment and the second is pro-1st amendment. I don't see your point. I guess I see the texas tribune article and the cnn piece both as 1st amendment issues. How is it a 14th issue?

Well...I'm conservative and at one time was a Republican. I believe the Republican party has lost it's way and isn't something I can vote for. But...your post is out in la la land on the subject. This would be akin to me claiming Obama is Muslim and wants install Sharia law in the US and Democrats have been planning this for 40 years when they first brought him from Kenya as a child prodigy to ultimately destroy America. Except, there are stories from CNN and other sites where Republicans are actually talking about doing many of the things I mentioned. Legalizing religious based discrimination: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/17/senate-republicans-zeroing-religious-freedom-bills/ Burn the American flag, go to jail: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/index.html So you are for the first amendment ..but not really?

I agree with my man Ron on this one. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/january/30/a-better-solution-than-trump-s-border-wall/

I remember Trumps attacks on Cruz for being bought by the "banks" in the primaries. Now ,this guy is a possible cabinet member...smdh

Good on him for doing that.

Where do I get one of them "ostrich rides" ya'll been talkin bout?

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant? It seems downright fascist. We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it. The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level. Good point as well!

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant? We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it. Spot on sir!

Mine's better lol

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort. Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back... And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit Hope you're feeling better. EDIT: Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility. http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society. Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS. One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts. None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country. I don't want to get into an argument over semantics, but they were still officially trying to keep people from entering the country. So having specific requirements an individual needs to meet to immigrate to this country is functionally equivalent to banning say ALL immigration into this country? I am not trying to be difficult, I just do not see how that is semantics... Managing immigration is way different than banning it. It is the difference between say having felony convictions or never being arrested... I appreciate your thoughts. My point was that we have had immigration restrictions before. A ban is still a ban ,even if its only for say, men of a certain age, etc .etc.

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort. Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back... And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit Hope you're feeling better. EDIT: Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility. http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society. Those are not outright immigration bans by the POTUS. One is an order supporting UN travel ban and sanctions. The other two are excluding individuals who committed specific intolerable acts. None of these are the POTUS banning immigration, definitely not arbitrarily banning ALL immigration from specific country. I don't want to get into an argument over semantics, but they were still officially trying to keep people from entering the country.

I never bought into Trump being a christian. Especially after he said "two Corinthians" speaking at a christian university .

Immigration really wasn't halted under FDR inasmuch as international travel was not really possible. The Bracero program basically removed the border with Mexico to increase non-immigrant laborers to replace agricultural workers lost to the war effort. Off the top of my head, there was the Chinese exclusion act, I believe in the 1800s there was something to limit Southern Europeans (might just be quota system), and then a temporary halt post-9/11 but the latter was more of a travel issue. Will add links when I get back... And that's answering my other post even if Knapp stole my thunder a bit Hope you're feeling better. EDIT: Here's some links, outright bans are absent in the modern era, few & far between before that at a Federal level. In the 1800s, a lot of states passed immigration but those were eliminated by the Supreme Court as a Federal responsibility. http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States http://cis.org/ImmigrationHistoryOverview https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer To be honest, I dont think bans work. There have been cases of homegrown terrorists already, they dont have to be imported. One of the dangers of living in a free society.

I do actually. Any human with great power should be under some sort of scrutiny. Im not that concerned with DeVos, her known policies dont raise my eyebrows. Bannon ruined what Breitbart used to be. But neither was convicted of blowing up govt buildings. Replying to Knapp , forgot to quote

Russia is not to be trusted, Putin is a KGB snake. Also, IMO, McCain is another poster boy for term limits

So my turn to stir the pot. Has anyone bothered checking to see if any other presidents have banned immigration? FDR is a gimme, so that doesn't count.

I figured the Bill of rights to be decimated i.e. speech, guns, due process etc., government control over personal property and the like. The rhetoric the dems were throwing with the help of main stream media and hollywood. It had seemed as if Obama was going to have carte blanche with his agenda, and the "right" could pound sand I recall the rhetoric over Obama/Dems & 2nd Amendment issues. Outside of massively unfounded propaganda, I do not recall anything Obama actually said in his campaign to justify his wanting to dismantle any of the other Amendments. What specifically made you believe the bolded? Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press Amendment 2 - The Right to Bear Arms Amendment 3 - The Housing of Soldiers Amendment 4 - Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Amendment 5 - Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases Amendment 7 - Rights in Civil Cases Amendment 8 - Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden Amendment 9 - Other Rights Kept by the People Amendment 10 - Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People This article sums it up fairly good http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-obama-legacy-an-assault-on-the-bill-of-rights/article/2601342 That was an article written in 2016 and takes a lot of liberties besides being way after either of Obama's elections. To be more explicit in my original question: During the 2008 and/or 2012 Presidential election cycles, what specifically did Obama say/do that made you believe he would be dismantling the Bill of Rights as you believed? I am trying to understand at the time cast your vote; anecdotal answer is fine... I am not trying to pick on you and you are welcome to ignore this. I am interested in your response if you are willing to continue... Trying to remember 2008... Hindsight is 20/20 so they say. I believe it was his views towards the wars ,universal healthcare being forced upon everyone that i disliked the most, plus his "acquaintances" that had anti American leanings like bill ayers ,jeremiah wright. So at the time ,that was enough reason for me. would've replied sooner but I caught the flu bug..yay

There's always Article V of the constitution, it's a safeguard for runaway govt.

Right there with you, brother. The strange thing is how on board I was with it all at the time. Patriotism is one of those words that's so powerful, and so dangerous when co-opted. To hold patriotism and "total allegiance" to be our national bedrock...it's all nothing too new, I suppose, but a bit like a horror movie. And I think it does inspire feelings of revulsion and horror in a lot of Americans. Even those of us who would disagree on many other policy points. It's just good to find common ground. (Echo knapp's edit above wholeheartedly ) “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.” ― Mark Twain and you as well Zoog

And I'm sure a LOT of people voted for Trump as the opposite of Obama. But the problem with this is, Obama never ran on a platform of fundamentally changing America. His 2008 platform was: And I posted his platform. So you're right he used those words, and to you that means he said he was going to do things similar to what Trump has done in just his first few days: Registering immigrants Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it Ban Muslims from entering America Put a gag order in effect on America's government departments Enable climate change deniers Threaten "send in the Feds" on cities he disagrees with These are not remotely the same things. One (Obama) was accused of being a dictator. The other (Trump) is actually in fact behaving like a dictator. EDIT - just want to point out that, while it appears we may disagree politically, it is a pleasure to discuss this with someone who brings salient, supported facts to the discussion. Keep this up! Ditto Knapp

I figured the Bill of rights to be decimated i.e. speech, guns, due process etc., government control over personal property and the like. The rhetoric the dems were throwing with the help of main stream media and hollywood. It had seemed as if Obama was going to have carte blanche with his agenda, and the "right" could pound sand I recall the rhetoric over Obama/Dems & 2nd Amendment issues. Outside of massively unfounded propaganda, I do not recall anything Obama actually said in his campaign to justify his wanting to dismantle any of the other Amendments. What specifically made you believe the bolded? Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press Amendment 2 - The Right to Bear Arms Amendment 3 - The Housing of Soldiers Amendment 4 - Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Amendment 5 - Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases Amendment 7 - Rights in Civil Cases Amendment 8 - Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden Amendment 9 - Other Rights Kept by the People Amendment 10 - Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People This article sums it up fairly good http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-obama-legacy-an-assault-on-the-bill-of-rights/article/2601342

I'm quite obviously referring to him signing an executive order that intended to close it within a year. Well, that's just absolutely absurd and has, nor had, no bearing on reality. HAAHAHAHAHA