Condescending speech she gave to those Africans?
-
yasqothamad — 9 years ago(January 26, 2017 11:21 PM)
"I" wasn't around hundreds of years ago, or indeed fifty years ago when the last colonialism ended. Funny how you think it's ok to generalise about and lump together all white Europeans, but if anyone should do the same about African black and Arab Muslims, you have a pearl-clutching, pant-wetting meltdown. Well here's the thing: people aren't falling for it any more, as seen by President Trump's immigration restrictions, as well as election results throughout Europe.
-
Theshornwonder — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 09:10 AM)
Trump's has lost every court case this week for his "policies". And it doesn't matter if "you" were there or not, your comment was based on societies, i.e. The imperialist Western Powers and now Islamic refugees. And it made you look stupid, which you've compounded with your reply.
-
firstwinsgop-1 — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 08:46 PM)
Because they are low ranking judges and the lower levels of the US judicial system is full of hacks. Believe me, as the case winds its way up the system, Trump will be vindicated. His opponents literally have no case. US Law explicitly grants the President the power to exclude from America any class of alien.
-
firstwinsgop-1 — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 06:39 PM)
I am probably the sharpest legal mind in the history of IMDB posting. But honestly, you don't need to be as knowledgeable as me to figure this one out. The pertinent statute:
8 USC 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
This is an open and shut case. In order for a judge to order a stay, plaintiffs need to have a significant chance of prevailing on the merits. The Boston judge denied the stay precisely because the case itself is so weak that it failed to meet this standard. No serious legal analyst believes Trump will lose this. The law is crystal clear. It isn't even the first time this as been done. Jimmy Carter took the same action based on the same statute way back in 1979. -
Theshornwonder — 9 years ago(February 05, 2017 09:27 PM)
Your first sentence proves you are a clown. Citing statutes is foolish, if you were an attorney you'd know that. The judges have interpreted the statutes and they've uniformly, republican and democrat alike, ruled against Trump. If it makes it to SCOTUS he'll lose 6-2
-
firstwinsgop-1 — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 09:00 PM)
I am probably the sharpest legal mind in the history of IMDB posting. But honestly, you don't need to be as knowledgeable as me to figure this one out. The pertinent statute:
8 USC 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
This is an open and shut case. In order for a judge to order a stay, plaintiffs need to have a significant chance of prevailing on the merits. The Boston judge denied the stay precisely because the case itself is so weak that it failed to meet this standard. No serious legal analyst believes Trump will lose this. The law is crystal clear. It isn't even the first time this as been done. Jimmy Carter took the same action based on the same statute way back in 1979. -
Theshornwonder — 9 years ago(February 05, 2017 09:33 PM)
You must not be aware of the nationwide injunction that was issued. You're no attorney. You used the word "stay". A stay is issued to prevent legal orders from taking effect, what plaintiffs were seeking here were temporary restraining orders and injunctions. If your legal mind was as "sharp" as you claim, you'd be known that.
-
TaRaNRoD — 5 years ago(August 27, 2020 01:58 AM)
Congratulations: you just made (yet another) argument in favour of stopping immigration and commencing deportation.
We left their countries; time for them to leave ours.
You, sir, are the true definition of a "****tard".
"You're a disease, and I'm the cure!" - Marion "Cobra" Cobretti -
estratton422 — 9 years ago(January 22, 2017 10:28 PM)
I like how people think they can say "I'm not PC" and feel it's a gateway to say anything racist. I also like this idea that certain technological advances that occurred in Europe somehow gave them license to exploit and destroy African societies. I'm guessing you are quite unfamiliar with some of the larger advanced and more African kingdoms of the past, before the Europeans began their wholesale destruction, as well.
-
jakubmike — 9 years ago(January 23, 2017 12:45 AM)
I also like this idea that certain technological advances that occurred in Europe somehow gave them license to exploit and destroy African societies
Might makes right.
It is one final truth about humanity. If you want something and have power to take it, you will and you will even rationalize what you did to make yourself look like a good guy. Skin color is irrelevant, if African kingdomes had power to do what europeans did they would do it.
I'm guessing you are quite unfamiliar with some of the larger advanced and more African kingdoms of the past
Not advanced enough since they were beaten into submission -
jsagotsky-1 — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 11:12 AM)
If you read Rudyard Kipling, he wrote about the "white man's burden" The Brits had an Empire across the whole world and they thought they were better than everyone, certainly everyone of different colors. It was their burden to colonize, for the good of the people that they came in and dominated.
They also deeply believed that the aristocracy was superior to "commoners". Thinks about that term to describe fellow Brits. The word class means they thought people with proper breeding, were better than everyone else.
America has broken down class barriers. There was never an aristocracy here. But I believe in Europe there was a strong belief that well bred people were superior to everyone else. -
cdz6969 — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 11:05 AM)
America has broken down class barriers. There was never an aristocracy here. But I believe in Europe there was a strong belief that well bred people were superior to everyone else.
Thus, those commoners came to the "New World". What was it, like 50% of Italy and Ireland's immigrated to the US between 1850 and 1920?
Jesus would support Universal Health Care -
Theshornwonder — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 01:11 PM)
I'm sorry, you think there is no aristocracy in America? Or do you mean that formally? Certainly there is no formal aristocracy, but from the days of the Revolution with Adams, Jefferson, Washington through the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt days to the Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes there has always been an unofficial American aristocracy. I won't include Trump in that, because one, his wealth is far to new, and second, because the actual aristocracy thinks he's a joke. He'll be impeached in two years and his brand in tatters. But licensing your name to vodka and tie makers isn't really the same as what those other families represent.
-
CheruthCutestoryII — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 08:48 PM)
LOL British gonna British.
I thought they did contrast it well with her being more respectful of their culture (like the crown not a hat) than Phillip and how generally friendly they both were with everyone there.
Most people thought I was a hero for killing Lydia's parrot.