Conjecture.

God damn libral' murdia! *waves fist*

Immigration Executive Order:



http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...r+-+Politix%29

There is a much more plausable and real threat to America!

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/sherry/anuk.htm

http://s63.photobucket.com/component...ount_floyd.gif

err. ok, actually reading that "article" reminded me of this cartoon.

http://www.toledoblade.com/image/201...rsey-jpg-1.jpg

after years of the liberal media chiding FOX for overreacting, it is really funny watching them having a meltdown over Trump. :ping:

Wrong, bum dope information ... it became legal the same day the vote was taken November 8th or at least the next day.

The only problem with the legal part is purchasing it ... that is not ready yet and won't be ready till January 2018. However like in any loop holes you can now legally grow marijuana in the State of California for medical persons and are you ready for this for giving it away. That's right giving it away is now considered sharing your pot with anyone is now legal and under the rules that were already established before the vote to legalize recreational pot.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it, but only in the states of California, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, and Massachusetts and Maine is it legal to purchase recreational marijuana, plus a whole lot of other states have pot legal for medical uses, but you don't want that excuse now do you?

I have read somewhere that POTUS is against the legalization of marijuana ... heck he doesn't even drink as a promise to his dying brother he made years ago.

I know a person who went into a marijuana store in Oakland, California last year with all of his paper work and his medical marijuana card and the man at the check out counter said, "Hell we don't want to see that just show us your drivers license"

So in some parts of California it has already been legal to purchase it over the counter.

When someone is brave enough to start a thread about this growing mence I will be glad to share my thoughts till then I will have to drive a long way to see if it is worth it.

Do not even think about getting in my lane high ... I will report you :arrgh!:

What will the lefties do? This isn't a ban at all, it's a very temporary moratorium, for 90 days. Obama used Presidential fiat to refuse to enforce US Immigration laws (a violation of his duty as the Executive Branch of government). He didn't do this for 90 days, he did it as permanently as he could. We didn't burn one business down, hold one screamin' meanie rally, threaten anybody, beat anybody up.

Trump sets up a 90 day moratoruim against the countries that the Obama administration identified as state sponsors of terrorism only, a tiny subset of the world's predominately Muslim countries. We have riots. We have screaming. We have conniption fits beyond all reason. The position of lefties is internally inconsistent. A president can suspend settled law, allowing unlimited violation and that's just fine. Another president can take measured, logical, limited and carefully based action for 90 days and the world is ending? If they could demonstrate that during World War II the United States had unlimited, unregulated immigration from Axis countries then some credence might be given. But it didn't happen and it is also sensible during THIS war.

Get a life lefties. We will protect you against your own will. Have you heard the ditty that a liberal is a person too enlightened to take their own side in an argument? Pretty true, no?

My my, you paint with a pretty broad brush and what do southpaws have to do with it?

Would not be a discriminatory decree be unconstitutional? Executive abuse is not just about "leftists" reactions. The court will come to a decision this week. A lot of innocent people caught in this mess.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38902650

Discriminating - from Latin: discrimino.

1. to seclude, to separate, to select, to sort out;
2. to brighten up;
3. to distinguish, to differentiate.

^ Or, Selektion? B.t.w. did you take a look at the link?

"Trump had called for a complete ban and although this was not a complete ban, it was discriminatory."
" [...] final minutes of the hearing were spent on whether the travel ban amounted to a shut-out for Muslims, which would be unconstitutional."

"Would." The court will find out this week, and it will have nothing to do with "left" or "right".

Listening to the minutes last night of the judges deliberating with the government lawyers, the judges said based on previous words from Trump specifically naming Muslims in the ban was the reason for the stopping the executive order. The government lawyers said that the verbiage of Muslims is not found in the executive order. Therefore the Muslims are not shut out or discriminated. Further, they added, of the countries selected these only comprised 17% of the Muslim population.

I suppose the original intent of wanting to ban all Muslims may play a big part in the courts decision. Add to the fact Rudy Giuliani himself publically stated he and others were tasked with finding a way to do this legally but they couldn't. Which is how we got the 90 day seven country ban instead of the original ban'em all executive order.

Yes, does not mean this one is. That is what the Courts will decide.

Yes, its a dog eat dog world out there, but the U.S. did not create it and the U.S. is not solely responsible to solve it.



The Syrian civil war has been going on for 6 years, 300-400,000 have died, there are an estimated 5-6 million refugees, the vast majority of which are still stuck in refugee camps in the Middle East.

What is the rest of the world doing about it?

How many Syrian refugees should the U.S. take in? 50,000? 100,000? 500 000?

I do believe the bolded bit was something he said during his campaign? Not 100% sure.