9
   

THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

 
 
Miller
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 10:16 am
The best treatment is the "IGNORE" button. ....

Carry on GLU....Time for the weekend to start. Have a good one!
giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 12:38 pm
@Miller,
I already am!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 06:15 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Luckily though there is plenty of other evidence that I am right. Note the court rulings quoted in Post: # 6,270,884 for example.

I have noted it and it says absolutely nothing to support your contention that the English bill of rights granted all citizens the right to have a gun.

That is incorrect. That post quotes a number of court rulings which enforce the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 06:16 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
More importantly, even in the unlikely event that this is true, I do not see how it could possibly relevant.

So you are now saying this statement by you isn't relevant to your argument?
oralloy wrote:
These restrictions were loosened in later centuries as the right to keep and bear arms was created in the English Bill of Rights.

It still seems pretty relevant that the restrictions that you cited were loosened in later centuries as our right to carry guns was created.


parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
How are they relevant to this discussion?

Unless you want to argue that your claim has no bearing on your argument it would be highly relevant.

I do not perceive any relevance to the claim that the right was created narrowly.


parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The interpretation of the right that is used by every single court of law in every single country that was ever a part of the British Empire, is hardly my own creation.

Except the ruling you quoted (Rex v Dewhurst) says absolutely nothing about the English Bill of Rights granting any rights to own or carry a gun.

Rex v Dewhurst was a case of a court using the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights as part of their ruling.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 06:17 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I initially didn't address that point at all, and focused instead on the points that I saw as relevant.
But Parados raised the issue again and complained about me ignoring it.

That's not true. You raised the English Bill of Rights first, before Parados responded to anything you wrote in this thread. Here's what you wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The right was created in 1689.

"My referral to the creation of the right" and "Parados' claim that the right was created narrowly" are not the same thing.

I did indeed refer to the creation of the right. But I didn't address Parados' claim that it was narrowly tailored until he repeated it and complained of me ignoring it, at which time I questioned how that was relevant.


joefromchicago wrote:
And you subsequently referred to the English Bill of Rights several times thereafter. So the point is clearly relevant to your argument.

I honestly cannot perceive any relevance to the claim that the right was created narrowly.


joefromchicago wrote:
Indeed, when Parados asked you if you were referring to the English Bill of Rights as the source of the right to bear arms, you said:

oralloy wrote:
Of course I am.

In response, Parados correctly noted that the right created in 1689 was quite limited, to the point that it could hardly be called a "right" at all.

It may or may not have been narrowly tailored, but I strongly dispute that it was limited to the extent of hardly being a right.


joefromchicago wrote:
That's when you said it didn't matter if he was correct. But it most certainly does matter. If Parados is correct, then your entire argument falls apart, since you are basing the American right to bear arms on the English Bill of Rights.

I believe that, if Parados' claim is 100% correct, it will not damage my argument even slightly.


joefromchicago wrote:
Your response to Parados, then, amounts to: "I'm not convinced that you're criticism of my position is right, but even if it is, it doesn't matter, because I'm still right." Can you see why that might not be a convincing argument?

All I can do is ask for an explanation as to how the point is relevant, and wait to see if anyone demonstrates that it is relevant.
parados
 
  7  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 07:50 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
That is incorrect. That post quotes a number of court rulings which enforce the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights.

The funny thing about that statement is none of the quotes you listed cite the English Bill of Rights.

Lack of evidence on your part doesn't make your argument true.
parados
 
  6  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 08:05 pm
@oralloy,
Wow.

You seem to want to completely ignore the part of your statement that states the right was created in the Bill of Rights. The same thing you then said wasn't relevant.

Quote:

I do not perceive any relevance to the claim that the right was created narrowly.
Because you want to completely ignore the exact text in the English Bill of Rights. It only give certain rights to protestants and only weapons allowed under law.


Quote:
Rex v Dewhurst was a case of a court using the right that was created in the English Bill of Rights as part of their ruling.

Too bad you haven't quoted any part of the ruling that cites the English Bill of Rights as part of the ruling that grants gun ownership to everyone without restriction.
parados
 
  8  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 08:20 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
But I didn't address Parados' claim that it was narrowly tailored until he repeated it and complained of me ignoring it, at which time I questioned how that was relevant.

When you cite the English Bill of Rights as your source how can the exact words in that document not be relevant? These are the EXACT words in the document.

Quote:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;



Those words are not relevant?
How can you claim it is a universal right that has no restrictions based on those words? One only has to read the exact words in the document to know you are are proposing something that didn't exist.

Let's examine the relevance.

You claimed:

Quote:
The right was created in 1689.
Rex v Dewhurst wasn't until 1820. So clearly you are arguing that the right exists because of the English Bill of Rights.

You also said this:
Quote:
Rights that were made in 1689 were transmitted to us.


Arguing that the words in 1689 meant what you claim was ruled on in 1820 is nonsense. It is nonsense on 2 counts. First, words change meaning over time and rights change with court rulings. You don't get to interpret the words of 1689 with an 1820 mindset. (Just as you don't get to claim the US had no slaves because the Declaration of Independence states all men are created equal.) Secondly, you haven't shown that Dewhurst actually ruled what you are claiming. You seem to guilty of wishful thinking that no one will actually look at the words and you can simply apply meanings that clearly aren't there or are in fact antithetical to the actual words.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2016 11:48 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
"My referral to the creation of the right" and "Parados' claim that the right was created narrowly" are not the same thing.

You're both referring to the same right, aren't you?

oralloy wrote:
I did indeed refer to the creation of the right. But I didn't address Parados' claim that it was narrowly tailored until he repeated it and complained of me ignoring it, at which time I questioned how that was relevant.

So what? You said that the EBR created the right to bear arms, and parados said that the right you referred to was narrow (to the point of being illusory). So you're both talking about the same thing, you just interpret it differently. Isn't that correct?

oralloy wrote:
I honestly cannot perceive any relevance to the claim that the right was created narrowly.

So if someone says that your position is wrong, that's not relevant to your position?

oralloy wrote:
It may or may not have been narrowly tailored, but I strongly dispute that it was limited to the extent of hardly being a right.

I have no doubt, but then that just means that parados's point is relevant to your position. If it weren't, there would be no reason for you to dispute it, strongly or otherwise.

oralloy wrote:
I believe that, if Parados' claim is 100% correct, it will not damage my argument even slightly.

Why not? If the EBR didn't create a genuine right to bear arms, then what's left of your argument that the EBR did create such a right?

oralloy wrote:
All I can do is ask for an explanation as to how the point is relevant, and wait to see if anyone demonstrates that it is relevant.

I need go no further than your own words. Your "strong dispute" of its truth proves its relevance.
giujohn
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2016 09:54 am
THE CONTINUING LIBERAL LIE

We hear Hillary, Black Lives Matter and the liberal press calling for national standards for police officers.

What that really is all about is their desire to have a national police force. The reasoning is it can then be controlled by Washington and the Department of Justice.

The problem with that is then it becomes entirely political. Look what has happened to the FBI and their investigation of Hillary's email scandal... It's a joke. We have Bill waylaing the Attorney General on an airport tarmac to ensure that the FBI would not make a recommendation to the grand jury. (anyone who believes that they were talking about their grandchildren is an idiot). We have the FBI director giving out immunity like candy allowing her chief-of-staff not only immunity but as a witness she is allowed to sit in on Hillary's interview where no record of that interview was allowed.

We have the Immigration Customs Enforcement now inexplicably and hurriedly giving out citizenship to as many as they can before the election because they know that newly-minted citizens usually vote democratic.

We have Border Patrol Agents told not to do their job. These and other federal law enforcement agencies have lost their integrity... sacrificed at the altar of liberal progressive politics.

That's why Soros and Hollywood has funded BLM... because it never was and still isn't about black lives that matter, as evidenced by this most recent shooting of a black man by black police officer.
parados
 
  5  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2016 10:07 am
@giujohn,

You really need to get yourself back in reality, giujohn. That rant is so filled with stuff that isn't true it makes one wonder how you get by in the real world.

Quote:
We have the Immigration Customs Enforcement now inexplicably and hurriedly giving out citizenship to as many as they can before the election because they know that newly-minted citizens usually vote democratic.


ICE doesn't give out citizenship. USCIS is the government agency that deals with granting citizenship. There are strict requirements that have to be met to get a US citizenship. They can't just give out citizenship. The person has to apply for citizenship and meet all the requirements. One of those requirements is that they have to have been in the US legally for at least 3 years and in most cases for at least 5 years.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/article/attachments.pdf

The government lists the time to get citizenship from applying to becoming a citizen as 6 months to a year.
https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-citizenship/how-long-does-the-us-citizenship-process-take/

Admittedly, there has been a large number of applications in response to the racist rhetoric of the GOP but that is not ICE handing out citizenship. It is a number of people deciding they want to become citizens to vote against the GOP.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2016 10:23 am
So I guess ICE is no longer part of USCIS???


News
Obama administration moves to let legal immigrants rush citizenship process before 2016 election – by allowing credit card payments instead of cash for fees

By Associated Press and David Martosko, Us Political Editor For Dailymail.com
08:19 EST 17 Sep 2015, updated 19:17 EST 18 Sep 2015

There are 8.8 million legal US immigrants are eligible for citizenship.

White House wants to recruit as many as possible before the 2016 election and will allow them to pay the enrollment fees with credit cards.

LA Times concludes 'the political effect is clear: Most of the potential new citizens are Latino and could be expected to vote for Democrats'
Illinois congressman foreshadowed the campaign in July with a House floor speech urging Hispanic green-card holders to become citizens in order to make Donald Trump angry.

The White House launched a national, multilingual public awareness campaign Thursday to help almost nine million legal permanent residents overcome barriers to become U.S. citizens.

'If you are eligible, commit to become a citizen today. It is an important step for you, and an important step for our nation,' said President Barack Obama in a video that launched the campaign on Citizenship Day, observed every Sept. 17.

'Join us. Together we can make America to stand even stronger.'

According to recent estimates, there are approximately 13.3 million legal permanent residents in the United States but only 8.8 million who are eligible to apply for citizenship.

Government data show nearly one out of every three eligible individuals obtained their legal status in 1990 or earlier.

The White House has been careful to avoid the appearance that it is trying to boost Democratic voter rolls in time for the next election.

But the Los Angeles Times reported Friday that 'the political effect is clear: Most of the potential new citizens are Latino and could be expected to vote for Democrats if they become eligible.'

CITIZENSHIP PUSH: President Barack Obama will allow green-card holders to apply for citizenship with credit cards, not cash, to pay the required fees.

ANGRY: Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Guttierez said in July that legal Hispanic immigrants living in the U.S. should become citizens to send a message to Donald Trump.

The campaign was conceived by a task force created by Obama last November, all part of a package of presidential executive actions on immigration that included expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which grants young immigrants work permits and reprieve from deportation.

The federal government's action on DACA, as well as a program that would extend deportation protections to certain parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, were put on hold on Feb. 16 by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas.

A Democratic congressman foreshadowed the campaign in July with a House floor speech in which he urged millions of green-card holders to become citizens in order to send Donald Trump and other Republicans a message that they're 'mean and frankly, let’s be honest, racist.'

Louis Gutierrez, the senior House Democrat from Illinois and a Puerto Rican, said that 'every time you see Trump’s face on your TV, vow to learn a little more English or a few more history facts so you can take the [citizenship] test.'

'Let’s turn Trump’s negative words into something positive. That is how you deal with bullies and bigots.'

Gutierrez spoke next to a poster of an angry-looking Trump, at times becoming just as animated himself.

For its public awareness campaign, the White House said businesses and nonprofit groups plan to host more than 70 citizenship outreach events in the first week, complementing 200 ceremonies in which the federal government will welcome more than 36,000 new citizens across the country.


BIG PICTURE: The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that the net effect of the new policy will be the creation of new loyal Democratic Party voters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will begin to allow credit card payments of the $680 naturalization fee and expand its mobile services to rural communities through a new partnership with the Agriculture Department.

USCIS will also launch an online U.S. civics and history practice test, a mandatory requirement for green-card holders who want to become American citizens.

Naturalized U.S. citizens such as chef and restaurateur José Andrés, actress Diane Guerrero, singer and songwriter Dave Matthews, and former Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Fernando Valenzuela will participate in the campaign, called 'Stand Stronger,' which will also seek to increase awareness of the contributions of new Americans.

The White House said almost 20 cities have joined the initiative, including New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Seattle, Pittsburgh and Atlanta.

There will be in-language material available in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and Tagalog, and the campaign will be promoted by various media companies such as Univision, Entravision, Latina Magazine and People en Español.

A White House official told The Associated Press that the Obama administration is not seeking to naturalize a specific number of legal permanent residents.

The official, who requested anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak with media before the official announcement, said the campaign will not represent a significant cost because it will be paid for largely with money already available to federal agencies.
giujohn
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2016 10:27 am

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government has mistakenly

(MISTAKENLY MY ASS)

granted citizenship to at least 858 immigrants from countries of concern to national security or with high rates of immigration fraud who had pending deportation orders, according to an internal Homeland Security audit released Monday.

The Homeland Security Department's inspector general found that the immigrants used different names or birthdates to apply for citizenship with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and such discrepancies weren't caught because their fingerprints were missing from government databases.

The report does not identify any of the immigrants by name, but Inspector General John Roth's auditors said they were all from "special interest countries" — those that present a national security concern for the United States — or neighboring countries with high rates of immigration fraud. The report did not identify those countries.

In an emailed statement, the Department of Homeland Security said the findings reflect what has long been a problem for immigration officials — old paper-based records containing fingerprint information that can't be searched electronically. DHS says immigration officials are in the process of uploading these files and that officials will review "every file" identified as a case of possible fraud.

Roth's report said fingerprints are missing from federal databases for as many as 315,000 immigrants with final deportation orders or who are fugitive criminals. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not reviewed about 148,000 of those immigrants' files to add fingerprints to the digital record.

The gap was created because older, paper records were never added to fingerprint databases created by both the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service and the FBI in the 1990s. ICE, the DHS agency responsible for finding and deporting immigrants living in the country illegally, didn't consistently add digital fingerprint records of immigrants whom agents encountered until 2010.

The government has known about the information gap and its impact on naturalization decisions since at least 2008 when a Customs and Border Protection official identified 206 immigrants who used a different name or other biographical information to gain citizenship or other immigration benefits, though few cases have been investigated.

Roth's report said federal prosecutors have accepted two criminal cases that led to the immigrants being stripped of their citizenship. But prosecutors declined another 26 cases. ICE is investigating 32 other cases after closing 90 investigations.

ICE officials told auditors that the agency hadn't pursued many of these cases in the past because federal prosecutors "generally did not accept immigration benefits fraud cases." ICE said the Justice Department has now agreed to focus on cases involving people who have acquired security clearances, jobs of public trust or other security credentials.

Mistakenly awarding citizenship to someone ordered deported can have serious consequences because U.S. citizens can typically apply for and receive security clearances or take security-sensitive jobs.

At least three of the immigrants-turned-citizens were able to acquire aviation or transportation worker credentials, granting them access to secure areas in airports or maritime facilities and vessels. Their credentials were revoked after they were identified as having been granted citizenship improperly, Roth said in his report.

A fourth person is now a law enforcement officer.

Roth recommended that all of the outstanding cases be reviewed and fingerprints in those cases be added to the government's database and that immigration enforcement officials create a system to evaluate each of the cases of immigrants who were improperly granted citizenship. DHS officials agreed with the recommendations and said the agency is working to implement the changes
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2016 12:12 pm
@giujohn,
ICE is part of the USCIS but it is not involved in granting citizenship. Your statement would be similar to arguing that the Bureau of Prisons is responsible to investigate federal crimes. Both the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons are part of the DoJ but only a fool would claim you can argue any department of the DoJ does the work of the FBI.

Your article says nothing about ICE giving out citizenships. It states that persons eligible to become citizens are being urged to do so by applying to the USCIS and allowed to pay with credit cards. That is not 'giving out citizenship".
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  6  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2016 12:13 pm
@giujohn,
If you think 858 votes are going to give Hillary the WH then I think you have other problems.
giujohn
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2016 12:24 pm
@parados,
Hey genius... how many votes did George W win over Al Gore?
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2016 06:44 pm
@izzythepush,
Izzy, I decided he was a liar who wasent worth conversing with a long time ago. He wants people to try to convince him he is mistaken because he takes great pride on being the second biggest liar on this site. Baldy of course being #1.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Sep, 2016 07:39 pm
@RABEL222,
Sez Rabel the truth merchant. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2016 12:57 am
@RABEL222,
There are a number of individuals who are not neven on nodding terms with the truth. Max and Finn are right up there as well. Everything they post drips with double meaning and innuendo.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2016 05:23 am
@izzythepush,
Disagreeing with Izzy is apparently synonymous with dishonesty.

Izzy is truth.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 10:39:36