Trump &#x27;to sign orders restricting refugees from Muslim nations&#x27;

Original post by joecphillips

Do you support the state removing citizens rights whenever they like?

Was the UK Parliament wrong in 1994 when it outlawed marital rape thereby removing a man's right to rape his wife?

Reply 43

Original post by Dandaman1

Oh for God's sake, that's not what a 'safe space' is. There's a difference between public security/immigration policy and SJWs hiding from things they find offensive.

Look how offended he was when he found out his inauguration wasn't as well attended as Obama's. Or when a theatre mocked his vice president. Seems like he wants a safe space of his own...

Reply 44

Original post by Bornblue

Was the UK Parliament wrong in 1994 when it outlawed marital rape thereby removing a man's right to rape his wife?

It's never been a right to be able to rape someone parliament redifined rape to include in marriage they did not remove a right like you anti-gun people try to do.

Reply 45

Original post by joecphillips

A little thing called the constitution.

Stupid logic. 'X should be allowed because X is allowed'. Circular argument.

Why do you get to force your will onto others?

If the democratically elected legislature and democratically elected President were to vote to ban guns that would simply be the exercise of democracy.
Just the same as anything else.

Reply 46

Original post by Bornblue

Look how offended he was when he found out his inauguration wasn't as well attended as Obama's. Or when a theatre mocked his vice president. Seems like he wants a safe space of his own...

It's funny that the Hamilton group is held up as a great thing when 10 months ago they were openly discriminating based on age and race and civil rights lawyers and unions were in uproar

Reply 47

Original post by joecphillips

It's never been a right to be able to rape someone parliament redifined rape to include in marriage they did not remove a right like you anti-gun people try to do.

Actually it was. You're wrong again. Before 1991 (when the court outlawed it), it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. Thus he had the legal right to do so.

The Courts and Parliament took this right away. Were they wrong to do so?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 48

Original post by joecphillips

It's funny that the Hamilton group is held up as a great thing when 10 months ago they were openly discriminating based on age and race and civil rights lawyers and unions were in uproar

...which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.

He was complaining that they said mean things about him and acting like he wanted his own safe space.

Reply 49

Original post by Bornblue

Actually it was. You're wrong again. Before 1991 (when the court outlawed it), it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. Thus he had the legal right to do so.

The Courts and Parliament took this right away. Were they wrong to do so?

Was it not that consent was said to be part of marriage?
And it also worked both ways so a woman could also rape a man.

Spoiler

Reply 50

Original post by Bornblue

...which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.

He was complaining that they said mean things about him and acting like he wanted his own safe space.

I just find it funny that you are using a group that discriminates to prove your point when people say he is racist as a reason to oppose him

It was just an observation not a rebuttal.

Reply 51

joe cooley

1

Original post by Bornblue

Look how offended he was when he found out his inauguration wasn't as well attended as Obama's. Or when a theatre mocked his vice president. Seems like he wants a safe space of his own...

When his VP was mocked by the black dude who had tweeted about raping drunken white chicks on St Patrick's day?

How cool is that!

Reply 52

childofthesun

Makes sense, because most of the recent terrorist attacks and mass shootings that occurred in the US were perpetrated by refugees and first gen immigrants from those 7 countries. Right?

Oh wait

Reply 53

username2950448

20

Lets analyse the 9/11 hijackers:

15/19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia
2/19 were from the UAE
Then 1/19 each from Egypt and Lebanon

Quite impressive that not one of these 4 countries is included in Trump's ban...

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 54

childofthesun

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

I am totally anathema to most of what Trump stands for, but I agree with the basic concept of severely restricting immigration from countries whose values are so backwards and regressive in comparison to our own. We've already seen how this overzealous opening of arms has destroyed parts of Germany and Sweden.

Do you really think that was the basis concept of this ridiculous plan?
And how can you make assumptions about the 'values' of each individual refugee/immigrant wishing to enter the US from those countries?

Reply 55