It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
.MASSHOLE.I mean for fucks sake, you can't really believe what you write all the time right? You're arguing against the 1st fucking Amendment.
To think, you consider yourself a patriot because of your desire for a nationalistic return to politics yet you disagree with the governing texts of this country. Pathetic.
Trump shot himself in the fucking foot with this one. He called it a ban, he campaigned on banning Muslims when he was in office, and countless other actions indicated it was based off religion, nothing else. If it had been safety-based, he would have included Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. considering that is where the 9/11 attackers came from.
He did include Yemen, you prove again that you are clueless. The countries he listed were a good starting point.
Foreign nationals are not entitled to 1st Amendment protection, this is a new left-wing fantasy put forth to undermine the very document, since you all treat it as a "living" document after all.
You Leftists don't actually believe in the 1st Amendment at all. Hence all your rhetoric about outlawing perceived "hate speech" (as defined by the Left).
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Admit it, you have a very special sympathy for Islamic ideology. You would flood the country with jihadists just to prove your false sense of righteousness.
"Assad says some refugees are 'definitely' terrorists"
CampeadorHe did include Yemen, you prove again that you are clueless. The countries he listed were a good starting point.
Foreign nationals are not entitled to 1st Amendment protection, this is a new left-wing fantasy put forth to undermine the very document, since you all treat it as a "living" document after all.
You Leftists don't actually believe in the 1st Amendment at all. Hence all your rhetoric about outlawing perceived "hate speech" (as defined by the Left).
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Admit it, you have a very special sympathy for Islamic ideology. You would flood the country with jihadists just to prove your false sense of righteousness.
"Assad says some refugees are 'definitely' terrorists"
Forgive me, I got 1 country wrong. He still didn't include the ones where the hijackers came from.
Nice job grouping all "leftists" together. The far left is bad as the far-right (which you are a part of). Each side has it's own wackjobs as we are witnessing.
You are an idiot Campeador, a poor excuse for a patriot when you don't even know your own Constitution. CC education strikes again.
If the Constitution and Amendments don't apply for foreign nationals, then why do the 5th and 14th amendment use the word "persons" instead of citizens? And why do the 1st and 4th say "the people"?
Why not use citizens?
The founders of this country did distinguish about the rights of citizens and non-citizens in this document, they denied them the right to vote and run for federal office.
Are you telling me the Framers made a mistake with their wording? It wouldn't seem like it to me.
And if we really want to get abstract, wasn't the Constitution just an enshrinement of natural rights that the government could not infringe upon? Do foreigners from these countries not have these natural rights?
Yes, let us trust Assad. Great choice.
You realize anyone who disagrees with Assad could be labeled a terrorist by him?
Great source there. Critical thinking at its finest.
TheHamburglarLook into Trump's pick for head of the EPA, Scott Pruit. He's a climate-change denier and has been fighting against EPA regulations for years. Now he only needs to be confirmed to be the head of the damn thing. Then they'll take steps to deregulate and eventually do away with the EPA. Bye bye environment!
What the fuck? Who in their right mind picks someone AGAINST an organization as the HEAD of the organization? That would be like making a hardcore anti-gun advocate head of the NRA
This is only proof we need a revival of the EPA. Shame on them for doing that kind of shit. We need good, hardworking people who care about our planet and not their paycheck
You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe everything you post. A few bad apples doesn't mean we should get rid of the fucking EPA. Environmental deregulation will effect every single American whether they like it or not.
SlushWhat the fuck? Who in their right mind picks someone AGAINST an organization as the HEAD of the organization? That would be like making a hardcore anti-gun advocate head of the NRA
WHAT IS THE LOGIC
Dude right? It's Republican logic though- deregulate industry so businesses can grow larger at the cost of our environment, in this case. Conservatives find minute flaws to use as rationale to disband the entire organization.
TheHamburglarLook into Trump's pick for head of the EPA, Scott Pruit. He's a climate-change denier and has been fighting against EPA regulations for years. Now he only needs to be confirmed to be the head of the damn thing. Then they'll take steps to deregulate and eventually do away with the EPA. Bye bye environment!
What are your thoughts on how the EPA raised safe radiation limits on some doses by over 100,000ppm after Fukushima? And how they raised radiation limits of drinking water by like 27,000ppm?
Gods_FatherWhat are your thoughts on how the EPA raised safe radiation limits on some doses by over 100,000ppm after Fukushima? And how they raised radiation limits of drinking water by like 27,000ppm?
I'd have to re-read but I think it was along the lines of it would save billions of $ annually and people weren't actually becoming ill from the radiation at Fukushima....which couldn't be further from the truth, ask any intelligent Japanese citizen. Not saying the EPA is incompetent but that's a bit suspect.
Gods_FatherI'd have to re-read but I think it was along the lines of it would save billions of $ annually and people weren't actually becoming ill from the radiation at Fukushima....which couldn't be further from the truth, ask any intelligent Japanese citizen. Not saying the EPA is incompetent but that's a bit suspect.
I'd be interested to read it and so would my GF. She is an environmental lawyer and is on the team currently sueing Hanford over exposing employees to dangerous levels of radiation... If there is anything suspect going on with that decision from the EPA, her firm will sue.
californiagrownI'd be interested to read it and so would my GF. She is an environmental lawyer and is on the team currently sueing Hanford over exposing employees to dangerous levels of radiation... If there is anything suspect going on with that decision from the EPA, her firm will sue.
I only read articles on it and they were from 2014, but tell her to search around and I'm sure she will come across others who are suing/filing complaints...trump's EPA pick has sued EPA multiple times. Reasons would have to be researched as well, sorry I couldn't help more.
californiagrownI'd be interested to read it and so would my GF. She is an environmental lawyer and is on the team currently sueing Hanford over exposing employees to dangerous levels of radiation... If there is anything suspect going on with that decision from the EPA, her firm will sue.
And we know $ is the root of everything so I'm sure there is a case there.
Gods_FatherWhat are your thoughts on how the EPA raised safe radiation limits on some doses by over 100,000ppm after Fukushima? And how they raised radiation limits of drinking water by like 27,000ppm?
Didn't really get anything from the article you posted.....are you saying that EPA did not in fact raise the safe levels of radiation of some doses by up to 100,000ppm?....because they actually did...
Gods_FatherDidn't really get anything from the article you posted.....are you saying that EPA did not in fact raise the safe levels of radiation of some doses by up to 100,000ppm?....because they actually did...
First of all, you keep making these wildly unbased claims, lets see you back some shit up yourself.
Second, its a Protective Action Guide that was proposed, its for use in emergency situations akin to fukishima to determine at what point to switch to a backup water supply. Keep your info within the context of it's purpose.
I can't even find any evidence this proposal was passed. This is just another pathetic Republican conspiracy attempt to discredit the EPA. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/protective-action-guides-pags
Some more light reading for ya
Gods_FatherDidn't really get anything from the article you posted.....are you saying that EPA did not in fact raise the safe levels of radiation of some doses by up to 100,000ppm?....because they actually did...
Can you post a link to the article you're referencing? I'd be interested to read it.
TheHamburglarFirst of all, you keep making these wildly unbased claims, lets see you back some shit up yourself.
Second, its a Protective Action Guide that was proposed, its for use in emergency situations akin to fukishima to determine at what point to switch to a backup water supply. Keep your info within the context of it's purpose.
I can't even find any evidence this proposal was passed. This is just another pathetic Republican conspiracy attempt to discredit the EPA. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/protective-action-guides-pags
Some more light reading for ya
You can read the new safe levels on the EPA website.....
TheHamburglarFirst of all, you keep making these wildly unbased claims, lets see you back some shit up yourself.
Second, its a Protective Action Guide that was proposed, its for use in emergency situations akin to fukishima to determine at what point to switch to a backup water supply. Keep your info within the context of it's purpose.
I can't even find any evidence this proposal was passed. This is just another pathetic Republican conspiracy attempt to discredit the EPA. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/protective-action-guides-pags
Some more light reading for ya
Btw those PAGs you're referring to are changed all the time, my country's own gov turned off our radiation fallout detectors after Fukushima.
TheHamburglarFirst of all, you keep making these wildly unbased claims, lets see you back some shit up yourself.
Second, its a Protective Action Guide that was proposed, its for use in emergency situations akin to fukishima to determine at what point to switch to a backup water supply. Keep your info within the context of it's purpose.
I can't even find any evidence this proposal was passed. This is just another pathetic Republican conspiracy attempt to discredit the EPA. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/protective-action-guides-pags
Some more light reading for ya
Also you're prob using a search engine that censors evidence of those dosage changes...
Gods_FatherYou can read the new safe levels on the EPA website.....
I couldn't find the numbers you specified anywhere on the site. I'm not saying the EPA is perfect and that they don't hide things from the people, but there's no utilitarian rationale to get rid of the entire department.
.MASSHOLE.Forgive me, I got 1 country wrong. He still didn't include the ones where the hijackers came from.
Nice job grouping all "leftists" together. The far left is bad as the far-right (which you are a part of). Each side has it's own wackjobs as we are witnessing.
You are an idiot Campeador, a poor excuse for a patriot when you don't even know your own Constitution. CC education strikes again.
If the Constitution and Amendments don't apply for foreign nationals, then why do the 5th and 14th amendment use the word "persons" instead of citizens? And why do the 1st and 4th say "the people"?
Why not use citizens?
The founders of this country did distinguish about the rights of citizens and non-citizens in this document, they denied them the right to vote and run for federal office.
Are you telling me the Framers made a mistake with their wording? It wouldn't seem like it to me.
And if we really want to get abstract, wasn't the Constitution just an enshrinement of natural rights that the government could not infringe upon? Do foreigners from these countries not have these natural rights?
Yes, let us trust Assad. Great choice.
You realize anyone who disagrees with Assad could be labeled a terrorist by him?
Great source there. Critical thinking at its finest.
Once again you're proving that not even $500,000 in education can fix stupid.
You haven't got a clue what was actually in the travel restriction, and you haven't got a clue about the Constitution either. Attempting to regurgitate left-wing media talking points on it doesn't do much for your case. Like the muslims using Western liberty to undermine it, you fuckers on the far-Left attempt to use the Constitution to undermine it.
See here's the problem with you argument, you cite the 14th Amendment while failing to actually cite it,
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You see now, muslim migrants from the Middle East aren't exactly "within the jurisdiction" of the United States. Therefore those Constitutional rights you think apply to anyone across the globe, regardless of location, do not. This is fairly obvious, and only a far-leftist like yourself would try to obfuscate that.
According to your logic, homeland security could find information on a muslim migrant having ISIS sympathies (either via email or social media), but would be unable to prevent them entry since, according to you, they're entitled to 1st Amendment rights of free speech.
If you leftists have your way, it'll be only a matter of time before non-citizens have the right to vote and run for office.
Again, you leftists are liars, and bad ones at that.
So between Assad saying that islamic terrorists are using the "refugee" system to enter the West, and ISIS and other militant groups explicitly saying that they're trying to do just that, you make the very odd claim that both of these entities are lying, and that there's nothing to fear.
TheDoughAbidesHow do you feel about chaffetz trying to nuder the blm and the nfs?
Specifically talking about hr 622.
Neuter*
I've never care much for Jason Chaffetz or the majority of the Republicans in Congress.
It seems the legislation you're worried about has been withdrawn. Without having read it, I cannot comment, but from the little that I do know about it, I do not fully understand the reasoning behind it.
TheHamburglarI couldn't find the numbers you specified anywhere on the site. I'm not saying the EPA is perfect and that they don't hide things from the people, but there's no utilitarian rationale to get rid of the entire department.
Bit odd, but from my memory they make it difficult to find the chart so I had to use a search engine to be directed to the page on their site. Btw I never said I was in favour of getting rid of the department, just asked, "what is your opinion on the increase of radiation levels"
Gods_FatherSorry, can't cause it's from something I read in 2014, but you can view the new safe levels on the EPA website.
Fair enough. For what it's worth, I don't think the EPA is perfect. That said, I think that the increase in these levels reflects updated understanding of radiation dose on human biology. Most people assume that no level of radiation is safe, and from that point of view, raising the dose limits seems insane. However, believing that no amount of radiation is safe is stupid. Radiation exists all around us and we experience it all the time. Eat a banana. Go into your basement. Take a flight. Get a body scan (PET/CAT/etc). Radiation is all around us. The assumption that no amount of radiation is safe is based on the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model, which is highly disputed in the scientific community for low levels of radiation. The effect of low level radiation (some even argue it is beneficial) is statistically impossible to prove.
Hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated from the areas around Fukushima based on Japanese protocols. None died from radiation exposure, but many died in the panic and mismanagement of a major evacuation. I'm not arguing about whether nuclear power is good or bad or safe or not (that's a whole different thread) but a major lesson learned from Fukushima was that we need to be smarter about how we treat nuclear emergencies. The updated EPA standards were born out of that discussion.
A lot of what you read about the effect of Fukushima radiation in the US will be overstated and fantastical. I recommend you to check out this website, which is a product of nuclear scientists intimately familiar with the radiation monitoring efforts in the US and Japan.
If you have any questions about what's there, feel free to ask and I can refer them to graduate students or faculty on that project. They do a lot of outreach and I'm sure they'd be
happy to help.
CampeadorOnce again you're proving that not even $500,000 in education can fix stupid.
You haven't got a clue what was actually in the travel restriction, and you haven't got a clue about the Constitution either. Attempting to regurgitate left-wing media talking points on it doesn't do much for your case. Like the muslims using Western liberty to undermine it, you fuckers on the far-Left attempt to use the Constitution to undermine it.
See here's the problem with you argument, you cite the 14th Amendment while failing to actually cite it,
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You see now, muslim migrants from the Middle East aren't exactly "within the jurisdiction" of the United States. Therefore those Constitutional rights you think apply to anyone across the globe, regardless of location, do not. This is fairly obvious, and only a far-leftist like yourself would try to obfuscate that.
According to your logic, homeland security could find information on a muslim migrant having ISIS sympathies (either via email or social media), but would be unable to prevent them entry since, according to you, they're entitled to 1st Amendment rights of free speech.
If you leftists have your way, it'll be only a matter of time before non-citizens have the right to vote and run for office.
Again, you leftists are liars, and bad ones at that.
So between Assad saying that islamic terrorists are using the "refugee" system to enter the West, and ISIS and other militant groups explicitly saying that they're trying to do just that, you make the very odd claim that both of these entities are lying, and that there's nothing to fear.
Is CAIR hiring? You'd fit right in.
I think someone needs to learn about constitutional law.
Let's start with Plyler v. Doe, it recognized the right of unauthorized immigrant children to get a free public education, in a decision that rejected only citizens fall under state's jurisdiction. This was done under the EXACT phrase you mentioned, as it deemed that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This means that the 14th Amendment, specifically the aspect YOU highlighted, applies to non-citizens.
We can also look at Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, which anyone who has studied constitutional law will recognize, for it had the famous ruling surrounding race-neutral laws and administration. This ruling highlighted, again, that non-citizens have a right to the Equal Protection Clause.
This one should really rustle your jimmies. Graham v. Richardson ruled that state restrictions on welfare benefits for legal aliens but not for citizens violated the Equal Protections Clause as well in a 9-0 decision.
Then, we have the case of Bridges v. Wixon where the majority opinion stated that "Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country."
Additionally, Chew V. Colding, in a footnote, indicated that neither the 1st nor 5th Amendment distinguishes between citizen and resident aliens.
If a lawyer wanted to, they could likely argue that Citizens United v. FEC strengthened immigrants' claims to free speech because the court in that case held that the government may not silence expression based on ID of the speaker.
It's amazing what an expensive education can teach you. So again, the wordage used in those amendments has been applied to non-citizens in a court of law. The Founders chose those words for a reason.
And there are cases where the 1st Amendment rights are not applied, your example being one of them. A quick search shows Turner v. Williams, Galvan v. Press, etc.
And you again show your lack of knowledge about Constitutional rights. Pathetic excuse for a patriot. To give non-citizens the right to vote and run for office one would need a Constitutional Amendment. I don't think I have to explain to you what that would entail.
Again, your critical thinking and research skills fail you. No wonder you came to NS for help on work. The vast majority of those on that list came pre-Obama (a lot even occurred before 9/11 and were convicted after) and were naturalized citizens. I don't think I need to tell you that becoming a citizen doesn't happen overnight.
But another interesting tidbit from that CIS source, 35% of the people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were US-born.
Again, Assad calls anyone who disagree's with his rule a terrorist, including the Peshmerga and other Kurds. Is there nothing to fear? No, but you're a snowflake so you're afraid of everything.
.MASSHOLE.I think someone needs to learn about constitutional law.
Let's start with Plyler v. Doe, it recognized the right of unauthorized immigrant children to get a free public education, in a decision that rejected only citizens fall under state's jurisdiction. This was done under the EXACT phrase you mentioned, as it deemed that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This means that the 14th Amendment, specifically the aspect YOU highlighted, applies to non-citizens.
We can also look at Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, which anyone who has studied constitutional law will recognize, for it had the famous ruling surrounding race-neutral laws and administration. This ruling highlighted, again, that non-citizens have a right to the Equal Protection Clause.
This one should really rustle your jimmies. Graham v. Richardson ruled that state restrictions on welfare benefits for legal aliens but not for citizens violated the Equal Protections Clause as well in a 9-0 decision.
Then, we have the case of Bridges v. Wixon where the majority opinion stated that "Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country."
Additionally, Chew V. Colding, in a footnote, indicated that neither the 1st nor 5th Amendment distinguishes between citizen and resident aliens.
If a lawyer wanted to, they could likely argue that Citizens United v. FEC strengthened immigrants' claims to free speech because the court in that case held that the government may not silence expression based on ID of the speaker.
It's amazing what an expensive education can teach you. So again, the wordage used in those amendments has been applied to non-citizens in a court of law. The Founders chose those words for a reason.
And there are cases where the 1st Amendment rights are not applied, your example being one of them. A quick search shows Turner v. Williams, Galvan v. Press, etc.
And you again show your lack of knowledge about Constitutional rights. Pathetic excuse for a patriot. To give non-citizens the right to vote and run for office one would need a Constitutional Amendment. I don't think I have to explain to you what that would entail.
Again, your critical thinking and research skills fail you. No wonder you came to NS for help on work. The vast majority of those on that list came pre-Obama (a lot even occurred before 9/11 and were convicted after) and were naturalized citizens. I don't think I need to tell you that becoming a citizen doesn't happen overnight.
But another interesting tidbit from that CIS source, 35% of the people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were US-born.
Again, Assad calls anyone who disagree's with his rule a terrorist, including the Peshmerga and other Kurds. Is there nothing to fear? No, but you're a snowflake so you're afraid of everything.
Nice try loser, you snowflakes are all on the Left. Being one is essentially an extension of the social justice culture that you've swallowed wholeheartedly.
You're too fucking stupid to even understand a basic argument. I never once claimed that non-citizens in the United States do not have certain rights, hence "under the jurisdiction".
You've just attempted to claim that non-citizens that are not under U.S. jurisdiction share these same rights, because again, you're even further to the Left on the social justice scale than even SJW.
You're just hopelessly clueless, no amount of frantic, five-minute Google searches can hide that.
You have more in common with the Sharia muslims you defend than anyone who can truly call him or herself an American.
So let me make this real simple for you, even for someone as mentally deranged are you, do you think non-citizens not under the jurisdiction of the United States government are entitled to Constitutional rights?
CampeadorNice try loser, you snowflakes are all on the Left. Being one is essentially an extension of the social justice culture that you've swallowed wholeheartedly.
You're too fucking stupid to even understand a basic argument. I never once claimed that non-citizens in the United States do not have certain rights, hence "under the jurisdiction".
You've just attempted to claim that non-citizens that are not under U.S. jurisdiction share these same rights, because again, you're even further to the Left on the social justice scale than even SJW.
You're just hopelessly clueless, no amount of frantic, five-minute Google searches can hide that.
You have more in common with the Sharia muslims you defend than anyone who can truly call him or herself an American.
So let me make this real simple for you, even for someone as mentally deranged are you, do you think non-citizens not under the jurisdiction of the United States government are entitled to Constitutional rights?
Really? Go look at the second post on page 68. You may want to refresh your memory. You used the term foreign nationals, which indicates all non-citizens.
Remember dumb ass, this whole tangent came from Trump's EO that targeted ANYONE from those countries, regardless of whether they were refugees, green card holders, dual citizens, legal working residents, or illegal aliens. I said he shot himself in the foot with this EO because it was going to be deemed unlawful because it violated the Constitution.
Seems your usage of broad, overarching terms blew up in your face.
Really goes to show who the idiot is here.
And no, I never argued that they do. But upon their entry into this country, they do. And Trump's EO violated this.
I've never care much for Jason Chaffetz or the majority of the Republicans in Congress.
It seems the legislation you're worried about has been withdrawn. Without having read it, I cannot comment, but from the little that I do know about it, I do not fully understand the reasoning behind it.
hr 621, the plan to sell off federal land, was withdrawn.
hr 622, the plan to get rid of law enforcement agents serving the nfs and blm, is still around. a lot of those positions (i'd guess most of them) are filled by veterans.
.MASSHOLE.Really? Go look at the second post on page 68. You may want to refresh your memory. You used the term foreign nationals, which indicates all non-citizens.
Remember dumb ass, this whole tangent came from Trump's EO that targeted ANYONE from those countries, regardless of whether they were refugees, green card holders, dual citizens, legal working residents, or illegal aliens. I said he shot himself in the foot with this EO because it was going to be deemed unlawful because it violated the Constitution.
Seems your usage of broad, overarching terms blew up in your face.
Really goes to show who the idiot is here.
And no, I never argued that they do. But upon their entry into this country, they do. And Trump's EO violated this.
You're the same moron that would cheer if muslims were flooding across the border by the hundreds of thousands.
The president has the established authority to control immigration.
Foreign nationals overseas do not have any special privileges to enter the United States, that includes all green card holders (although I disagree with it including dual citizens or having included those already at the port of entry).
You're a moron if you believe otherwise. You only disagree with the restriction because you feel it targets your favorite minority unfairly.
Admit it, you social justice loon, you would love to see large swaths of the country start to look like Dearborn, MI. It gives you a special sense of warmth inside.
As long as it doesn't affect your little liberal bubble, right?
TheDoughAbideshr 621, the plan to sell off federal land, was withdrawn.
hr 622, the plan to get rid of law enforcement agents serving the nfs and blm, is still around. a lot of those positions (i'd guess most of them) are filled by veterans.
I've never particularly like Chaffetz, nor can I see any public benefit for either of these bills.
CampeadorYou're the same moron that would cheer if muslims were flooding across the border by the hundreds of thousands.
The president has the established authority to control immigration.
Foreign nationals overseas do not have any special privileges to enter the United States, that includes all green card holders (although I disagree with it including dual citizens or having included those already at the port of entry).
You're a moron if you believe otherwise. You only disagree with the restriction because you feel it targets your favorite minority unfairly.
Admit it, you social justice loon, you would love to see large swaths of the country start to look like Dearborn, MI. It gives you a special sense of warmth inside.
As long as it doesn't affect your little liberal bubble, right?
You're the same moron who thinks that everything Trump touches turns to gold. You'd be willing to lick his balls if he asked you to.
Your community college education is showing again. I never mentioned foreign nationals overseas, I said once they come into this country then they should be given the rights that the Constitution has granted them and the SC has upheld. That is called being a patriot, but you wouldn't know what that is like.
The moment this country starts prosecuting people unfairly and unjustly is the moment people like you have won. Thankfully, your fearless leader is too stupid and incompetent to make it happen. Thank god.
I just know that you run away from all your problems or blame them on others. It's pathetic really. It is depressing to think our education has spawned someone as stupid and ignorant as you.
.MASSHOLE.You're the same moron who thinks that everything Trump touches turns to gold. You'd be willing to lick his balls if he asked you to.
Your community college education is showing again. I never mentioned foreign nationals overseas, I said once they come into this country then they should be given the rights that the Constitution has granted them and the SC has upheld. That is called being a patriot, but you wouldn't know what that is like.
The moment this country starts prosecuting people unfairly and unjustly is the moment people like you have won. Thankfully, your fearless leader is too stupid and incompetent to make it happen. Thank god.
I just know that you run away from all your problems or blame them on others. It's pathetic really. It is depressing to think our education has spawned someone as stupid and ignorant as you.
You are truly a fucking moron. Clearly a restriction on entry would apply to those already overseas, don't try and flip the script you snarky leftist trash.
Your messiah Obama failed to deliver for you, so now all you have left is Alinsky-style politicking, the natural state of the far-Left. You had Obama's bullshit so far down your throat it's a miracle you could even breathe, although all that lack of oxygen clearly left its mark on your cognitive abilities. You defend Sharia Islam in a way that would make anyone, besides the most virulent far-leftist, blush.
The Constitution does not apply to foreign nationals outside of U.S. jurisdiction, period, end of story. No amount of pathetic attempts to weasel in an argument changes that in any way whatsoever.
Trump is the answer to snide, pretentious, pajama-boy leftists like you. You're about the furthest thing from a patriot imaginable. You're an open-borders loon, and you seldom have even the slightest clue what you're talking about.
When people like me win, the country wins. When fuckers like you win, you get Sweden.
And let me conclude by saying that the only one seemingly with problems here is you, and probably partially explains why your ex-girlfriend hates you. The only option left to you is to post passive-aggressive bullshit about her on a public forum. Seems like you're the one blaming your own inadequacies on others. Your own parents probably don't even like you, and who could blame them after wasting half a million dollars on you?
mirozFair enough. For what it's worth, I don't think the EPA is perfect. That said, I think that the increase in these levels reflects updated understanding of radiation dose on human biology. Most people assume that no level of radiation is safe, and from that point of view, raising the dose limits seems insane. However, believing that no amount of radiation is safe is stupid. Radiation exists all around us and we experience it all the time. Eat a banana. Go into your basement. Take a flight. Get a body scan (PET/CAT/etc). Radiation is all around us. The assumption that no amount of radiation is safe is based on the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model, which is highly disputed in the scientific community for low levels of radiation. The effect of low level radiation (some even argue it is beneficial) is statistically impossible to prove.
Hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated from the areas around Fukushima based on Japanese protocols. None died from radiation exposure, but many died in the panic and mismanagement of a major evacuation. I'm not arguing about whether nuclear power is good or bad or safe or not (that's a whole different thread) but a major lesson learned from Fukushima was that we need to be smarter about how we treat nuclear emergencies. The updated EPA standards were born out of that discussion.
A lot of what you read about the effect of Fukushima radiation in the US will be overstated and fantastical. I recommend you to check out this website, which is a product of nuclear scientists intimately familiar with the radiation monitoring efforts in the US and Japan.
If you have any questions about what's there, feel free to ask and I can refer them to graduate students or faculty on that project. They do a lot of outreach and I'm sure they'd be
happy to help.
I agree with you on radiation, the alarming thing is the large increase in iodine-131 which disrupts thyroid(associated with third eye). As for people dying from the fallout, it's a grey area b/c there actually have been reported deaths from sailors, including from leukaemia and there has atleast been a large amount of people becoming ill and having bad symptoms, Japan's former prime minister agreed with a group of sailors who are suing tepco. In his words, "Those who gave their all to assist Japan are now suffering from serious illness… I learned that the number of sick people is still increasing, and their symptoms are worsening"
Prob worth noting that plant 3 leaked plutonium..."inhaling one millionth of a gram of plutonium can cause cancer"
CNN also reported that 15 us states detected radiation from isotopes of radiation from Fukushima, Washington state even found the radiation in milk samples.
I guess Campeador is the first Constitutional law, economics, religion, and political expert who fails basic reading comprehension. Who knew. I guess community college is good for something, creating illusions of grandeur.
It's funny, Trump supporters decry Clinton and Islam yet they're willing to get doubleteamed by Putin and Bannon without question.
