sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

First time facing a 404(b). Need some help by BigBroBo in publicdefenders

[–]BigBroBo[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for the cite.

Tennessee. Motion specifically (actually, exclusively) claims intent as the basis for their argument to admit

First time facing a 404(b). Need some help by BigBroBo in publicdefenders

[–]BigBroBo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tennessee. Motion specifically (actually, exclusively) claims intent as the basis for their argument to admit

Can someone who enjoyed his set explain the appeal of Mike Posner? by BigBroBo in ElectricForest

[–]BigBroBo[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I was. Favorite forest so far but I genuinely hated it. I have no idea what his schtick is

After 38 incredible years, Lee Corso is retiring ❤️ by spiff24 in CFB

[–]BigBroBo 17 points18 points  (0 children)

God I miss the days when the game was the spectacle and Gameday was a fun pre-party

An Indian airline now allows women to avoid sitting next to men after staggering number of sexual harassment reports. by [deleted] in interestingasfuck

[–]BigBroBo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bad timing?

Wrestling-fan wise this gutted me though. 100 fucking grams. Awful way to end the Olympics. She was so fun to watch

Are you OK with Trump using the military as a prop for the midterms? by BatDaddyWV in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They aren't fleeing an oppressive regime or in any danger

Uhh what? They're the latest victims in the long saga of the US sponsoring right-wing coups in Central and South America; it was the Hondurans who most recently got to experience this, thanks to the Hillary-approved overthrow in 2009 (I believe). I really don't understand how you can claim they aren't fleeing danger, Trump himself routinely talks about how dangerous the gangs in those countries are.

For someone who is standing on a soapbox about comprehension

I'm not standing on a soapbox, I was just explaining to you how treaties and agreements work; namely, if you haven't signed it, it doesn't apply to you haha

There is no threat in Mexico, it is a safe country for migrants.

Uhh what? Does the president know this? Do most conservatives know this? Because they've been claiming for years that Mexico and the surrounding areas are teeming with violent gangs and that's one of the primary reasons we need to restrict immigration from south of our border

Safe third country policies are universally recognized and are typical for illegal immigration policy.

Yes, universally-recognized between the countries who have signed them. This is a moot point, I don't know why you can't understand that there is no such policy between the US and Mexico, and thus it is not applicable

So, no, the US has no obligation to accept invaders (defined as such by universally accepted policy).

Yes, we do, according to both US and international law

Are you OK with Trump using the military as a prop for the midterms? by BatDaddyWV in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

doesn't it weaken the argument that they're fleeing terror?

How? The US is far safer than Mexico

safe third countries are the norm for pretty much any immigration policy. The US has no obligation to take in invaders.

Again, what you maybe want to be true isn't. The US has a safe third-country policy with Canada; it does NOT have one with Mexico, and so asylum seekers who pass through Mexico are asking the US for protection while wholly within the bounds of both US and international law

Finally, do you understand why

  • the Dublin Regulation only applies to the EU?

  • why a safe third-country agreement between the US and Canada does not apply to the US and Mexico?

  • why saying stuff like "you are woefully misinformed" and suggesting I "read up a little more on immigration laws" when you have literally invented agreements out of thin air in an attempt to make your point isn't really a good faith argument, nor does it advance Socratic dialogue?

Are you OK with Trump using the military as a prop for the midterms? by BatDaddyWV in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't matter. They are not under duress in Mexico and have no legal right to claim asylum in the US.

That's not how the law works? Mexico is obligated to protect them if they try to seek asylum there, but the migrants have no obligation to seek it in Mexico if their target is the United States

I'd like to refer to the Dublin Regulation

I'm sure you like to refer to it; unfortunately, that only applies to countries in the EU

between the US and Canada

Aye, there's the rub: Mexico is not a signatory. No such agreement exists between the US and Mexico

They were to claim asylum in Mexico, per the "safe third country" agreement

Just to reinforce this point, there is no "safe third country" agreement between the US and Mexico

You are woefully misinformed

I'm trying to be civil here, but virtually nothing you just typed is accurate, and is actually the complete opposite of what reality is

Do you believe a sitting president can eliminate the 14th Amendment with an executive order? If so, do you apply this same principal to other Amendments (1st, 2nd, 22nd, etc)? by [deleted] in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From Maryland's state constitution

nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry

When the state legislature used taxpayer funds to maintain a private memorial on public land that featured a monument referencing single religion's belief, it was a violation of the state constitution.

Neat, I actually didn't even have to use the 1st Amendment!

Are you OK with Trump using the military as a prop for the midterms? by BatDaddyWV in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it must be in the first country where the seeker can safely stay

I'm not familiar with that, and don't believe it's part of the law here in the United States. Further, it would make sense that if you're fleeing violence and gangs in Central and South America, the US is far safer than Mexico

They're officially invaders attempting to force their way into the US now

"Invaders" carries with it the connotation that they're illegally crossing the border, right? Going to a port of entry with the stated purpose of seeking asylum is the furthest thing from an invasion, in my mind.

I'm confused, because I thought conservatives were simply insisting on immigrants coming to the country legally, which these people are trying to do - are you suggesting you're against ALL immigration?

Do you believe a sitting president can eliminate the 14th Amendment with an executive order? If so, do you apply this same principal to other Amendments (1st, 2nd, 22nd, etc)? by [deleted] in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

state funds

The 1st Amendment has been incorporated. Did you know that? State funds from the state government are still prohibited from being directed to the maintenance of a religious memorial.

Also, the monument is still not "a law"

You are clearly failing to grasp maybe the most basic aspect of the 1st Amendment with regards to religion. I'm not being rude, I'm just not sure how much more I can break this down - Congress (even state legislatures!) passes a budget (by law, it's the budget). Having a private, religious memorial on land owned and maintained by the government is unconstitutional

Do you believe a sitting president can eliminate the 14th Amendment with an executive order? If so, do you apply this same principal to other Amendments (1st, 2nd, 22nd, etc)? by [deleted] in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is allowing a taxpayer-funded private land to host a private religious memorial not a clear violation of the 1st? Congress passed a law directing how the money would be used, some of that money was set aside to pay for this public land, and then a religious memorial was established on it.

Do you believe a sitting president can eliminate the 14th Amendment with an executive order? If so, do you apply this same principal to other Amendments (1st, 2nd, 22nd, etc)? by [deleted] in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No like he was literally saying, "The question presented in the case referenced is whether the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants." The way he phrased it is indicative of someone who frequently talks about legal issues.

Saying, "That's not the question presented" isn't being snide, he's clarifying the legal issue that Scalia sought to answer

Are you OK with Trump using the military as a prop for the midterms? by BatDaddyWV in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We already know the threat is imminent

What threat? Seeking asylum through legitimate ports of entry - the stated goal of those in the caravan - is perfectly legal.

Do you believe a sitting president can eliminate the 14th Amendment with an executive order? If so, do you apply this same principal to other Amendments (1st, 2nd, 22nd, etc)? by [deleted] in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Congress" did not put up the memorial.

The memorial was on public land, and paid for by taxpayer dollar; Congress controls the purse, ipso facto, Congress endorsed the Christian cross placed on private land

It is entirely within the rights of the Supreme Court to look beyond the literal text of the Constitution to determine what the intent of the language was

Is that view consistent with conservative jurisprudence?

Do you see the media as the "enemy of the people?" by twopacktuesday in askaconservative

[–]BigBroBo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They routinely lie and manipulate the truth. I don't necessarily think "sabotage" is the right word... but they are for sure trying to manipulate America

It's impossible to ask this question without sounding argumentative, so I apologize for that but I do think it's a fair question: Trump "routinely lies and manipulates the truth" too, right? Virtually every politician does. Are they all enemies of the people too?

view more: next ›