Fuhrer Trump: No muslim welcome for 4 months

[Scuba Pete]

Effective vs. directly ordered. It was an impact in his method of selecting refugees, and it weeded out Christians.

Citation needed. Please show this in writing. What directive was being followed. If only a certain percent of Christians applied for asylum then only a certain percentage can be accepted. How many were declined? How many Muslims were declined? It would appear that this is just an emotional feeling/fact. Nothing real to it at all. Of course, you can provide the citations I'm requesting.

 

[Watchmen]

You should understand more about the legal theories involved here. You need intent/purpose as well. Sorry to burst you bubble. Now there are a few instances where this may not be the case but the general rule is that the plaintiff must show more than disparate Impact or treatment alone. This is going to be especially necessary when looking at immigrants and refugees. Given the religious makeup of other immigrant populations allowed to enter, i.e. Iraq, your argument holds little water. The question you are asking is why didn't the u.s. pay special favor to Christian refugees.

Sorry to burst your bubble but disparate impact is a valid legal theory and does NOT require intent. Did you go to law school?

 

[Curious George]

Sorry to burst your bubble but disparate impact is a valid legal theory and does NOT require intent. Did you go to law school?

I am sorry, is Washington v. Davis no longer good law?

 

[Curious George]

Citation needed. Please show this in writing. What directive was being followed. If only a certain percent of Christians applied for asylum then only a certain percentage can be accepted. How many were declined? How many Muslims were declined? It would appear that this is just an emotional feeling/fact. Nothing real to it at all. Of course, you can provide the citations I'm requesting.

It is effective. Without question the administration would have known that this was the case at some point. That they did not choose another option means they were effectively continuing there policy. What we do not have is what other options they could have taken, and why they did not take them. The implication is that it was because the administration disfavored xtians. Yet when looking at other refugees or immigrants this is not the case. So there is a gap in logic.

 

[BSM1]

I notice that some posters missed the sarcasm in your post,
which aped the one it mocked. Humor is lost on some, eh.

Yeah. Waddya gonna do?

 

[BSM1]

It is outrageous, and that this nativist scum would do so on International Holocaust Remembrance Day is a despicable irony.

I must apologize for my first response to your post (being that I was censored due to an outcry from the chosen. So much for free speech). What I should have said was, "The radical elements of the Muslim faith, who we all recognize as the epitome of reasonableness and gentility, have been characterized as not having a particular fondness for those of other faiths, including those of Hebrew leanings." Again I apologize if I have offended anyone's sensibilities.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Without question

This usually means that you have no proof. What policy? Show us a memo. Show us some documentation, other than "you heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy and EVERYONE knows this is the case (unless you're one of them)" Break the mold here and give us some real proof. No lame copp out like I won't believe it. You think you're Curious? I'm even more so. Make me an informed believer.

Reading this doesn't indicate that there is any bias against or for Christians. Oh wait. Is not giving them preference the problem? Oh snap! In your mind is not giving them preference actually discriminating against them?

 

[Scuba Pete]

being that I was censored due to an outcry from the chosen. So much for free speech

There is no room for racial or hate speech in the USA. It's as illegal as it is offensive.

 

[Watchmen]

I am sorry, is Washington v. Davis no longer good law?

Are you aware of Griggs v Duke Power Co. and its progeny? Are you aware of the 1991 amendments to Title VII? Do you still deny that "disparate impact" is a valid legal theory?

 

[Curious George]

Are you aware of Griggs v Duke Power Co. and its progeny? Are you aware of the 1991 amendments to Title VII? Do you still deny that "disparate impact" is a valid legal theory?

Yes, I am aware of the cases. Either you haven't read what I have said or you haven't read the law. Disparate Impact alone is not enough. Are you making the claim that title VII changed that? Further are you making the claim that an immigration issue is going to fall under title VII?

And you never answered my question, is Washington v Davis good law?

But a further questions, which case overruled it?

 

[BSM1]

There is no room for racial or hate speech in the USA. It's as illegal as it is offensive.

Well, actually it's not, but let's not split hairs,

 

[BSM1]

It is outrageous, and that this nativist scum would do so on International Holocaust Remembrance Day is a despicable irony.

What, pray tell, is a nativist scum; and should other nativists be offended?

 

[Revoltingest]

What, pray tell, is a nativist scum; and should other nativists be offended?

I'm not sure if I should be offended.
Is it a slur against all scum?
I'm pond scum.

 

[Kirran]

I must apologize for my first response to your post (being that I was censored due to an outcry from the chosen. So much for free speech). What I should have said was, "The radical elements of the Muslim faith, who we all recognize as the epitome of reasonableness and gentility, have been characterized as not having a particular fondness for those of other faiths, including those of Hebrew leanings." Again I apologize if I have offended anyone's sensibilities.

You could have just said: there is widespread anti-Semitism, both theological and cultural in derivation, within the majority of today's Muslim communities. That would have been accurate. It would, however, have been of limited relevance.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I must apologize for my first response to your post (being that I was censored due to an outcry from the chosen. So much for free speech). What I should have said was, "The radical elements of the Muslim faith, who we all recognize as the epitome of reasonableness and gentility, have been characterized as not having a particular fondness for those of other faiths, including those of Hebrew leanings." Again I apologize if I have offended anyone's sensibilities.

Free speech in no way entitles one to unmoderated use of a private website. For more information, please see here: Freedom of speech - Wikipedia
I apologize if the rules of the site offend anyone's sensibilities.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What, pray tell, is a nativist scum;

Are you playing dumb, or are you really asking? The latter is a type of bigot based on who's indigenous to a particular country. Normally, their racial memory is flawed. Here in the US, many natavists forgot that they were invaders once and demanded that all blacks be sent back to Africa. Natavists are bigots ergo they are scum. Bigotry and and form of hate speech is reprehensible.

 

[Tumah]

Absolutely. Let's wait until the worst is accomplished before warning that the worst is yet to come.

So your saying, now that Trump has been elected to power, we should expect him to start rounding up Muslims in cattle cars, torturing and executing them, within the next 9 years.

Nor do we need to falsely categorize informed and informative comparisons as false equivalencies. There is some truth in Santayana warning: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

This is not an informed and informative comparison. If he were comparing Trump to FDR, that might be an informed and informative comparison. But to Hitler? Let's wait until he personally arranges for the categorical annihilation of Muslims in the US, before we start making that comparison.

 

[Curious George]

This usually means that you have no proof. What policy? Show us a memo. Show us some documentation, other than "you heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy and EVERYONE knows this is the case (unless you're one of them)" Break the mold here and give us some real proof. No lame copp out like I won't believe it. You think you're Curious? I'm even more so. Make me an informed believer.

Reading this doesn't indicate that there is any bias against or for Christians. Oh wait. Is not giving them preference the problem? Oh snap! In your mind is not giving them preference actually discriminating against them?

Methinks you are barking up the wrong the wrong tree.

But let me understand what you want me to provide. You wish to be provided with documentation that shows the Obama administration knew of or should have known of the disparate impact toward Syrians who are Christians?

I am not sure if you digested what I have said previously or in the post to which you replied, but I am saying the Obama administration did not discriminate against Christian refugees. Oh snap, did you hear that right? Yep, you did.

 

[Kirran]

So your saying, now that Trump has been elected to power, we should expect him to start rounding up Muslims in cattle cars, torturing and executing them, within the next 9 years.

This is not an informed and informative comparison. If he were comparing Trump to FDR, that might be an informed and informative comparison. But to Hitler? Let's wait until he personally arranges for the categorical annihilation of Muslims in the US, before we start making that comparison.

While I don't entirely disagree with your thrust here, you can see why the phrase 'let's wait until he personally arranges for the categorical annihilation of Muslims' before anything is a little troubling.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, I am aware of the cases. Either you haven't read what I have said or you haven't read the law. Disparate Impact alone is not enough. Are you making the claim that title VII changed that? Further are you making the claim that an immigration issue is going to fall under title VII?

And you never answered my question, is Washington v Davis good law?

But a further questions, which case overruled it?

I never made any arguments. I just said disparate impact is a valid legal theory, which it is.