Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Your post just sounded angry. Pointing that out isn't using "snark". Didn't you cry about poking a bear or something like that. I just laughed when you brought that thread up here. The admin. kept changing their story repeatedly and it was clear what their intent was. People were doing word searches on the order and saying it didn't use the word ban.
You're doing what you accuse all those others of--not thinking for yourself. You presented article after article after article that try to show intent, but don't deal with the actual wording of the EO. TDF posted the whole EO. I pointed out the section which gave the regulator the ability to allow those with green cards and proper visas to enter, and he did so citing the wording of the EO. That's the only clear intent that has been proven. And by that, the so-called lack of clarity was corrected. But the correction of any misapplication, which should have been a reasonable end to the discussion, was totally ignored and the negativity kept coming, (wonder why) and you depended on that rather than thinking for yourself by looking at the actual wording of the EO and the reasoning of the regulator re those words.
I once read something that a Nobel prize winner said - something like if somebody sat down next to you at a party and said he was Napoleon, why engage in a discussion with him about cavalry tactics?
This is an extreme "apples to oranges" comparison. I'm not claiming to be anybody. I'm trying to have a rational discussion with somebody whom I hope is doing the same. If this cuckoo comparison is how you're looking at it, why on earth would I want to have a discussion with you.
In other words, why get drawn into the minutiae of a technical discussion when the overall framework of the conversation is silly. Why would I want to engage with you on a discussion of the constitution.
|
The overall framework is founded on its minutiae. So if a conversation is silly, then it is not paying attention to the minutiae. Or worse, it is purposely disregarding them in order to create a truth which cannot be proven. Thinking for yourself often requires the ability to understand the minutiae.
It seems that you want to depend on articles which satisfy your bias rather than depending on your own reading of the giant, glaring "minutiae" of the actual wording of the EO. And you have demonstrated in the past that you are not able to think on the Constitution but must depend on others to think for you. Even so, you could have discussed the statute (not the Constitution) which gives the President the clearly specified power to do what Trump did. And the very statute that the 9th Circuit Judges ignored.
Instead of thinking for yourself, you went to the "you're angry" schtick.