TOTALLY GEEKED!

From protesting Trump, to wearing or not wearing makeup. This thread went in an unexpected direction.

On the makeup issue, I believe that most women look their best in none or in as little as possible. But if you do want to wear it, please, for the love of God, do not wear it "Tammy Faye Bakker style"!

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

A Federal judge has blocked Trump's second travel ban nationwide.

flan

---

 Which they have no right to do.  They are overstepping their bounds.  The President has the legal right to do what he did.

---

 And I should believe you because...?

flan

---

 I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me.  It's the LAW.  If you want to remain ignorant, that's your problem.  And your precious Obama did the same damn thing without obstructionist judges blocking him.  

 

flannie. You never disappoint.

I've lost track about what this thread is about. I don't usually wear makeup. Time consuming and my skin doesn't take well to foundation. So meh.

How about a pigs ass? Obviously flan is ignorant of the law and believes it is only for SOME people. Not illegal aliens or thugs mind you but Trump can't even use an Executive Order like Obama did. You know like the one he used to create the first travel ban before Trump was even in the running.

I didn't know a previous President had put a travel ban into place that was as broad and general as this one?

Who cares if he did or didn't? Trump is the POTUS now, not Obama. He is allowed to issue Executive Orders.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Who cares if he did or didn't? Trump is the POTUS now, not Obama. He is allowed to issue Executive Orders.

---

 Well, you seem to care a lot about what O did or didn't do.  And nobody (at least not me, so maybe this comment is aimed at someone else) has said he can't issue EOs.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Who cares if he did or didn't? Trump is the POTUS now, not Obama. He is allowed to issue Executive Orders.

---

 Well, you seem to care a lot about what O did or didn't do.  And nobody (at least not me, so maybe this comment is aimed at someone else) has said he can't issue EOs.

---

 Um, yeah.  Of course i care what he did or didn't do.  He was the Potus for 8 yrs.  We aren't allowed to talk about Obama now or what?  

---

 you are welcome to your thoughts.  No matter how flip floppy they are.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

You aren't the "permission giver" of whether someone is 'welcome to their thoughts".

---

 ???  You need permission?

you need to ask? This is all becoming quite confusing.

I guess their point is that Obama's ban wasn't EXACTLY the same as Trump's so somehow that makes it totally different in their minds, or who knows! lol

You know, it absolutely does matter what the last president did because the affects don't end when a new president takes office.

We are living with laws, EOs, and bills from presidents since President Washington took office, in some way or another.

Thats why it is so important that we have the checks and balances we have.

As for travel bans, this isn't the first, it won't be the last.

There is a process in place for entering a country, it's there for a reason.

If those coming into the country don't like it, they can stay out.

 

Do y'all remember, right before the old board shut down, Yellow Daisy went from being a little odd to right out losing it? I think we are seeing that again...

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

I didn't know a previous President had put a travel ban into place that was as broad and general as this one?

---

 Actually, it was 7 countries instead of 6 and for 6 months instead of 90 days. 

 

Regardless, the authority comes out of the same law passed back in the 1950s.  

---

 I don't remember the 6/6 one being implemented?  

 

And right?  So how are all these Federal courts overriding it?  (that said, Canadian Provinces have the right to tell the Federal gov't when they think they are being idiots and pass bylaws to avoid whatever it is.  This happening a lot around the decriminalization of weed)

---

 Obama suspended visas from 7 countries for six months.  Trumps new ban targets 6 countries for 90 days. 

The courts are manned by liberal judges who don't actually care what the law says - if they don't agree with it, they will try to stop it until they are overturned.  I think when they are - they should be removed from office.

---

 Hmm.  I don't remember noticing that in the news.  I lived in Cali for more than half of his presidency, so I must have just missed it.  I know that the biggest concern about the travel ban (at least outside of the country) is/was the way that it was introduced and how the border agents were enforcing things that weren't in the order but that stood.  It might have been clear from a govt perspective, but it was definitely open to interpretation, which went horribly awry in some situations.  I thought that that was why it was blocked the first time.  I don't know if that is the same thing that blocked the second.

Ohfour wrote:

---

Thats because it wasn't news when Obama did it. It was all fine and well. President Trump does it and the libs lose their collective little minds....

---

 Yep.  

trump will prevail--he has the constitution and the statutes on his side--blatant judicial activism from the liberals as per usual

In the end this will cause the taxpayers a lot of money.

Tignanello wrote:

---

That's weird. I can't imagine it will stand either, if there is no legal background or precedent.

---

 Not weird. The Judge gets that when it is raised up to the Supreme Court level his ruling will be over turned, it is all about the lib train slowing things down.  O did so many things skirting law and the Constitution, And Trump is by the book. Trump gets that and will power through all this BS.

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

That's weird. I can't imagine it will stand either, if there is no legal background or precedent.

---

 Not weird. The Judge gets that when it is raised up to the Supreme Court level his ruling will be over turned, it is all about the lib train slowing things down.  O did so many things skirting law and the Constitution, And Trump is by the book. Trump gets that and will power through all this BS.

---

 Are you sure he can READ the book?

No briefing sessions...

flan

---

 LOL, stop believing in the lib BS news.  They are LYING to you.  Bet you even believed that on Nov 7th Hill was 10 pts ahead of Trump in the polls, that was another line of BS they fed to you.

Lol! You actually thought Hillary was going to win. Your choices are retarded to say the least. Grow up Flannie.

Are we doing "Democrats say one thing and do another" here?

If we are, I want to add the threats that Democrat lawmakers are making about shutting down the government if the Republicans don't stop trying to dismantle Obamacare.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't the Democrats say, many times over the past 6 years, that it wasn't fair to do that, and that they would never do anything like that?

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Oops. My mistake. It wasn't Obamacare. They threatened shutdown if Republicans fund the border wall or defund Planned Parenthood.

"Senate Democrats cautioned Monday that any attempt to not fund Planned Parenthood or fund a border wall would result in a shutdown of the government."

dailycaller.com/2017/03/13/democrats-threaten-government-shutdown-over-border-wall/

---

 Yes, they are willing to shut down the government over de-funding baby killing, or stopping illegal immigration.  They need to go.  Most of the country is in favor of the wall, and most of the country either hates planned parenthood or doesn't care enough for that to be an issue.

The loudmouths get on the news, but most people in America are not loud mouth liberals that are support everything illegal, immoral and deviant.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The PP thing only affects clinics that perform abortion.

It's not hard to write into the medicaid contract, or whatever, that abortion will not be covered, but all other services will.

Personally, I'd be all for providing BC. There are so many options out there now. From condom to tubals, unplanned pregnancies should be few and far between these days.

---

 I agree with that.  But I would prefer a new program that doesn't have the history of eugenics and baby killing.  I'd be all for supporting a program that provides multiple forms of birth control.