It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Emergency Stay Granted - Defeat for Trump's Right Wing Agenda

page: 32
89
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by Indigo5 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: xuenchen

Watch the film. He's at the airport.


That governor is a Left Wing


He told a few lies too.

Not good.



Unusual to see you so deep in a thread )))



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: UKTruth

We're veering off topic here. Trump is a vulgar person in many ways. I understand he wants to reduce public funding for the arts. Most societies fund arts that appeal to a narrower band of the demographic spectrum. The consensus wisdom is that those expressions of culture have value. Maybe Trump will be able to reduce that funding, maybe not.


The 'expressions of art' in question, by definition, have no value if they are given tax payer money to survive. They would not need it if they offered value.

Case in point, tax payer money was spent under Obama to produce a play about lesbian gun-control advocates and a "feminist, postmodern improvisational dance" show performed by a drag queen. 10 homeless veterans could have been fed for a year with the tax payer money wasted on that particular rubbish.
edit on 29/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I beg to disagree. Art holds little value to me (probably because I am so technical-minded), but it obviously does to others. As much as I do not usually watch the PBS stations, they do offer a few shows I like. I figure that's true for everyone. Not all value can be expressed in dollars and cents.

Seeing as this is such a minuscule part of the budget that does affect so many, I hope it dodges Trump's cuts.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



10 homeless veterans could have been fed for a year with the tax payer money wasted on that particular rubbish.


I happen to agree. A much more socialist approach should be taken and we need to prioritize what we spend our money on. Although, I'm not necessarily against the funding of the arts.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



10 homeless veterans could have been fed for a year with the tax payer money wasted on that particular rubbish.


I happen to agree. A much more socialist approach should be taken and we need to prioritize what we spend our money on. Although, I'm not necessarily against the funding of the arts.


Some areas of socialism work. No argument from me on that.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

PBS is not NPR.
But I agree with the sentiment.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Hmmm.

If the airport screening people didn't have any instructions, how did they know who to stop and detain ?




edit on Jan-29-2017 by xuenchen because: basketofdeportables



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UKTruth

I beg to disagree. Art holds little value to me (probably because I am so technical-minded), but it obviously does to others. As much as I do not usually watch the PBS stations, they do offer a few shows I like. I figure that's true for everyone. Not all value can be expressed in dollars and cents.

Seeing as this is such a minuscule part of the budget that does affect so many, I hope it dodges Trump's cuts.

TheRedneck


Fair enough, but I hold the view that a product or service only has value is you are willing to pay for it. That's financial value of course.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I know, but both are supported by the CPB. One cannot be cut without cutting the other.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

I love a good CT and will entertain plenty.

I hope you wake up to reality unless you want a red wedding to occur to your own backyard once Muslims begin to out number people. This is a Trojan horse, planned by George Soros and the NWO.


That however will need some sources.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

We agree to disagree then. God above, it feels good to do that!

Thank you, UK.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
According to Giuliani, Trump wanted a Muslim ban but realized that he needed a strategy, to do it legally.

www.washingtonpost.com... rm=.c189cd8ec248


Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.

“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Yes, it's not over pending legal briefs in February. But this stops the right wing hate in its tracks right now.


Sorry, I fail to see how a temporary ban on people from Muslim countries until a real background vetting process is put in place is considered hate.

To the sane people its considered a drastic and very much needed security measure to prevent more terrorist attacks on our citizens, whom are mostly from the very same Muslim countries.


edit on 29-1-2017 by anonfamily because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

They are stopping non-US citizens who arrived on a flight that came from a country on the temporary ban list. Pretty simple, not stereotyping involved.

edit on 29-1-2017 by anonfamily because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
For those that are saying, "this is Obama's plan and Trump is just copying, the hypocrisy!

If you look a little deeper Obama and Trump had two completely different circumstances that triggered ban and vetting of refugees.

Here's a WaPo article about the difference. Obama had the temporary ban because they discovered that one of the soon to be refugees was a Yemeni bomb maker. So of course Obama did the right thing to pause taking in people.

Trump on the other hands is doing this for no good reason but to make a political posture. Nothing more. The vetting process is already in place because of the Obama administration; plus, Trump has overreached and included people that already have green cards and are okay to come into the country.

At the end, this is the reason why sane Americans are protesting Trump. He's posturing for points, but it has backfired by overreaching and he's hit by yet another set back. This is amateur hour folks. Unfortunately, his mistakes have real life impact on people and is the reason why he needs to go, NOW.


wapo.st...
edit on 29-1-2017 by SeekingAlpha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

You have to read the existing laws cited in the EO to understand anything.

MSM is busy today.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Good on The ACLU.
Keep Drumpf in his place.
Banning a religion from entering the country is unconstitutional. Even an idiot should be able to understand that. I guess Drumpf is dumber than an idiot.
edit on 1/29/17 by NotTooHappy because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Trump said, "We don't want them here" meaning muslims when he signed the EO.

Plus, individuals with refugee applications approved by US Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the US Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from the 7 countries are legally authorized to enter the United States; just like anyone else with the same visas.

Add these two together and you have a combination of hate and discrimination lauded by white supremacists.



originally posted by: anonfamily

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Yes, it's not over pending legal briefs in February. But this stops the right wing hate in its tracks right now.


Sorry, I fail to see how a temporary ban on people from Muslim countries until a real background vetting process is put in place is considered hate.

To the sane people its considered a drastic and very much needed security measure to prevent more terrorist attacks on our citizens, whom are mostly from the very same Muslim countries.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I read both Obama's and Trump's. Trump's version is in part unconstitutional and violates the equal protection clause.



originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

You have to read the existing laws cited in the EO to understand anything.

MSM is busy today.




edit on 29-1-2017 by SeekingAlpha because: (no reason given)







 
89
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join