Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Politics and Religion Forum (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Poor CNN (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=73078)

BostonTim 02-09-2017 06:10 PM

Poor CNN
 
:***: :***: :***: :***: :***:

Trump is a fake news n-word hater/racist

http://www.businessinsider.com/chris...-n-word-2017-2

Media: Sure as hell dishes it out. ROFL

Jaric 02-09-2017 07:06 PM

Does this mean that only CNN is allowed to call CNN fake news?

anderson 02-09-2017 07:10 PM

Speaking of poor CNN, their front page right now is hilarious.

Baron Samedi 02-09-2017 09:36 PM

I don't think anyone doubted the 9th circus would rule against him.

They don't call it the 9th circus for nothing, the most overruled liberal activist court in the nation.

Having said that, I kind of hope the ruling stands.

anderson 02-09-2017 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi (Post 2420390)
I don't think anyone doubted the 9th circus would rule against him.

They don't call it the 9th circus for nothing, the most overruled liberal activist court in the nation.

Having said that, I kind of hope the ruling stands.

For it to be unanimous is a bit significant. Plus if you listened to the arguments put forward by the DOJ, it's clear that it was the only outcome.

Very very strenuous points.

aloyouis 02-09-2017 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderson (Post 2420394)
For it to be unanimous is a bit significant. Plus if you listened to the arguments put forward by the DOJ, it's clear that it was the only outcome.

Very very strenuous points.

SC will overturn as they have so often for the circus.

Or Trump will break the order apart into 3 or 4 parts and re-issue it.

Either way, the US wins.

anderson 02-10-2017 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aloyouis (Post 2420417)
SC will overturn as they have so often for the circus.

Or Trump will break the order apart into 3 or 4 parts and re-issue it.

Either way, the US wins.

If you want to put some money on this, we can pick a suitable escrow and get going.
Happy for any amount up to $1k just for the sweat.

Mazz22 02-10-2017 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aloyouis (Post 2420417)
SC will overturn as they have so often for the circus.

Or Trump will break the order apart into 3 or 4 parts and re-issue it.

Either way, the US wins.

Yeah. It will most likely be re-done into smaller parts. This is going to go forward.

anderson 02-10-2017 07:05 AM

Amazing that two US courts (and that'll be confirmed in the SC as well) can find something unlawful and you guys are still rooting for it to actually happen.

The muslim ban isn't a victory for America. Judges throwing unlawful decress the **** out is a victory for America.

O_P_T 02-11-2017 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderson (Post 2420446)
Amazing that two US courts (and that'll be confirmed in the SC as well) can find something unlawful and you guys are still rooting for it to actually happen.

The muslim ban isn't a victory for America. Judges throwing unlawful decress the **** out is a victory for America.

So you claim it is a "muslim ban" because of Trump's campaign rhetoric and Juliani's statements?

I don't suppose the actual wording of the order has any bearing?

Is that what we are going to do going forward? Judge something not on what it actually says but what we think the person wanted to do?

Funny how if there is the slightest difference between what Trump's administration says something means, and what a parsing of the details by their opponents says it means, is framed as a "false claim", yet in this case, that isn't necessary.

anderson 02-11-2017 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O_P_T (Post 2420915)
So you claim it is a "muslim ban" because of Trump's campaign rhetoric and Juliani's statements?

I don't suppose the actual wording of the order has any bearing?

Is that what we are going to do going forward? Judge something not on what it actually says but what we think the person wanted to do?

Funny how if there is the slightest difference between what Trump's administration says something means, and what a parsing of the details by their opponents says it means, is framed as a "false claim", yet in this case, that isn't necessary.

When you bar people from predominantly muslim countries from entry and provide exclusions for people from minority religions, I am not sure what part of the actual wording suggests it's not a religiously motivated ban.

Especially given the context of Giulani's comments and Trump's campaign promises.

deec77 02-11-2017 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderson (Post 2420446)
Amazing that two US courts (and that'll be confirmed in the SC as well) can find something unlawful and you guys are still rooting for it to actually happen.

The muslim ban isn't a victory for America. Judges throwing unlawful decress the **** out is a victory for America.

They actually haven't ruled on the constitutionality of the "ban" they have yet to rule on the merits of the case. The original judge issued a temporary restraining order. They (Trump) appealed the temporary restraining order issued by the first judge while the case is still pending. The 9th circuit upheld the restraining order.

~Dee~

aloyouis 02-11-2017 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderson (Post 2420424)
If you want to put some money on this, we can pick a suitable escrow and get going.
Happy for any amount up to $1k just for the sweat.

You have a gambling problem, don't you?

I'll just let you sit tight and think about the gambling beating you took on election day.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderson (Post 2420446)
Amazing that two US courts (and that'll be confirmed in the SC as well) can find something unlawful and you guys are still rooting for it to actually happen.

The muslim ban isn't a victory for America. Judges throwing unlawful decress the **** out is a victory for America.

Why do you need to lie to make your point?

aloyouis 02-11-2017 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deec77 (Post 2420947)
They actually haven't ruled on the constitutionality of the "ban". The original judge issued a temporary restraining order. They (Trump) appealed the temporary restraining order issued by the first judge while the case is still pending. The 9th circuit upheld the restraining order.

~Dee~

100% correct.

Means 0% to an Erson when they are desperate to make a "point".

Erson reminds me of the writers that can't quite seem to comprehend the deflategate facts and refer to Brady as having been punished for deflating footballs. Not true, they don't care. Same with politics.

tehmackdaddy 02-11-2017 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderson (Post 2420944)
When you bar people from predominantly muslim countries from entry and provide exclusions for people from minority religions, I am not sure what part of the actual wording suggests it's not a religiously motivated ban.

If it is a Moose-lamb ban one would think it would affect more than 15% or Moose-lambs. :tmack:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.