Quote:He's talking about Muslims being banned from entering the country and then telling Trump to look in the constitution for equal protection of law... exactly who do you think he's talking about that needs equal protection of law?
Where in that quote does it say foreign citizens in other countries are equal under constitutional rights?
Quote:He's talking about Muslims being banned from entering the country and then telling Trump to look in the constitution for equal protection of law... exactly who do you think he's talking about that needs equal protection of law?
To be fair, Mr. Khan merely stated that if it was up to trump, they wouldn't be in this country. But he also stated that Mr. trump has denigrated several races, ethnicities, and religions. He then mentions the Constitution and refers to "libery" and "equal protection under law".
So I think you may be twisting the conversation to fit your specific view.
The context of Mr. Khans speech goes mainly into the concern of kicking out Muslims, "Mexicans", illegals, and persecuting minority groups. The extrapolation to closing boarders to religious classes may very well be argued as Constitutional or Un-Constitutional--- But it clearly is anti-American if you believe in liberty and due process under law...
But the main point Mr. Khan slams trump on cannot be disputed when you consider trump's position on minority groups and his views of them.
Quote:To be fair, Mr. Khan merely stated that if it was up to trump, they wouldn't be in this country. But he also stated that Mr. trump has denigrated several races, ethnicities, and religions. He then mentions the Constitution and refers to "libery" and "equal protection under law".
So I think you may be twisting the conversation to fit your specific view.
The context of Mr. Khans speech goes mainly into the concern of kicking out Muslims, "Mexicans", illegals, and persecuting minority groups. The extrapolation to closing boarders to religious classes may very well be argued as Constitutional or Un-Constitutional--- But it clearly is anti-American if you believe in liberty and due process under law...
But the main point Mr. Khan slams trump on cannot be disputed when you consider trump's position on minority groups and his views of them.
Talk about twisting the conversation to fit your specific view!!
Don't try to tell me the "context" of his speech, I'm reading the man's actual words. Notice that nowhere in his speech does he talk about Trump "kicking out Muslims, "Mexicans", illegals and persecuting minority group". He does however, talk about Muslims being banned FROM the country. Disrespecting minorities, woman, and judges might make him a huge feminine hygiene product, it's not against the law.
So using Mr. Khan's speech, the actual one, not your pretend version of what he said, tell me who is left in it that would need "liberty and equal protection of law".
Quote:Tonight we are honoured to stand here as parents of Captain Humayun Khan and as patriotic American Muslims - with undivided loyalty to our country. Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy; that with hard work and goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings.We are blessed to raise our three sons in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams.
Our son, Humayun, had dreams too, of being a military lawyer, but he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son 'the best of America'.
If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities; women; judges; even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country. Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future.
Let me ask you: have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. [he pulls it out] In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law'.
Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America.
You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.
We cannot solve our problems by building walls, sowing division. We are stronger together. And we will keep getting stronger when Hillary Clinton becomes our President.
In conclusion, I ask every patriot American, all Muslim immigrants, and all immigrants to not take this election lightly.
This is a historic election, and I request to honour the sacrifice of my son - and on election day, take the time to get out and vote.
And vote for the healer. vote for the strongest, most qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton, not the divider. God bless you, thank you.
Quote:Talk about twisting the conversation to fit your specific view!!
Don't try to tell me the "context" of his speech, I'm reading the man's actual words. Notice that nowhere in his speech does he talk about Trump "kicking out Muslims, "Mexicans", illegals and persecuting minority group". He does however, talk about Muslims being banned FROM the country. Disrespecting minorities, woman, and judges might make him a huge feminine hygiene product, it's not against the law.
So using Mr. Khan's speech, the actual one, not your pretend version of what he said, tell me who is left in it that would need "liberty and equal protection of law".
Sorry, bunnie, but context is key. You know, cuz without it the whole discussion is meaningless. For instance, you ignoring my 3rd paragraph reduces my post to complete nonsense. I'll restate it for ya:
The context of Mr. Khans speech goes mainly into the concern of kicking out Muslims, "Mexicans", illegals, and persecuting minority groups.
The extrapolation to closing boarders to religious classes may very well be argued as Constitutional or Un-Constitutional--- But it clearly is anti-American if you believe in liberty and equal (edited for accuracy) process under law...
I've bolded the part I think is the most important. The concept of liberty and equal process of law is the foundation of Mr. Khans attack on trump. As I mentioned in my original post, and what I'm pointing out to you again here, is that the context is important. The offense that minorities feel about trump is the stances he takes in which he's looking to exile the current minorities based on nationality (mexicans), race (hispanics), or religion (muslims).
Also, as I pointed out which you failed to recognize as you took your high horse for a ride, is that the Constitutionality of banning immigrants before they enter the USA may be argued, but the fact remains that it's clearly anti-American. Would you not agree? Or does the concept of the Statue of Liberty no longer apply? Or do they only apply to fair skinned Anglo-Saxon Europeans?
These are the points Mr. Khan is making. And it is important to understand them as a whole as we read his words. Which I also did. And is why I focused on his mentioning of "Liberty" and "Equal protection under law".
Burgandy,
Don't you find it odd that you have people coming out of the woodworks who hardly ever post in this forum who immediately recognize how batcrap crazy and radicalized you truly are? Doesn't that carry some weight?
You mentioned your step dad is a Trump supporter. I am guessing your views probably drove him to that point and may drive him off a bridge pretty soon.
Yep...just like I thought. Pretend version.
I dont see anywhere in tat speech
Quote:Yep...just like I thought. Pretend version.
Still trying to figure out why Donald said he was viciously attacked. All the man did was ask if he read the constitution. Considering Mr. Trump was unclear on how man articles are in it. Its a fair question.
Most natuaralized citizens are more educated on our constitution just by the nature of the testing they have to take.
Quote:I dont see anywhere in tat speech
Still trying to figure out why Donald said he was viciously attacked. All the man did was ask if he read the constitution. Considering Mr. Trump was unclear on how man articles are in it. Its a fair question.
Most natuaralized citizens are more educated on our constitution just by the nature of the testing they have to take.
Exactly, nothing anchor wrote was actually in the speech. I'm glad you agree.
Quote:Exactly, nothing anchor wrote was actually in the speech. I'm glad you agree.
I also dont see where he claimed its unconstitutional to forbid immigration.
Quote:I also dont see where he claimed its unconstitutional to forbid immigration.
You'd have to ask anchor about that, since, you know...context. He's the one making those claims.
Closing the border to certain groups is clearly Constitutional and has been done for various reasons in the past. Anchor and Khan are just making stuff up.
Quote:Burgandy,
Don't you find it odd that you have people coming out of the woodworks who hardly ever post in this forum who immediately recognize how batcrap crazy and radicalized you truly are? Doesn't that carry some weight?
You mentioned your step dad is a Trump supporter. I am guessing your views probably drove him to that point and may drive him off a bridge pretty soon.
LOL, who, bunnie? She's been apologizing about trump attacking these patriotic muslims for the entire week.
My point has yet to be disputed. You can disagree with it, if you like. But if you, or any poster for that matter, is to lazy to actually explain the exact points you find disagreeable, it's just troll posting...
Quote:Closing the border to certain groups is clearly Constitutional and has been done for various reasons in the past. Anchor and Khan are just making stuff up.
I actually did the research. It's never been fully hashed out in the courts. And, as I pointed out, it's clearly un-American. Unless, like I said, which has been ignored, we no longer care about the Statue of Liberty and what it represents.
Quote:You'd have to ask anchor about that, since, you know...context. He's the one making those claims.
LOL, Mr. Khan never talked about liberty and equal process under law? OK... :blink:
Quote:LOL, Mr. Khan never talked about liberty and equal process under law? OK... :blink:
Mr. Khan wants liberty and equal protection for people that are banned from entering the country? Congratulations! You've finally admitted that he wants to give our constitutional rights to people outside of our country!!!
Quote:Mr. Khan wants liberty and equal protection for people that are banned from entering the country? Congratulations! You've finally admitted that he wants to give our constitutional rights to people outside of our country!!!
I would love to see that. Cause I have read to see what the hoopla was about and don't find anywhere he said that. All Donald had to do was leave it alone and you would never hear from Khan again.
The man is so easily baited. And he falls for it every single time. It's like he sits and watches every thing said about him. It's only going to get worse for him. Not better.
Quote:Mr. Khan wants liberty and equal protection for people that are banned from entering the country? Congratulations! You've finally admitted that he wants to give our constitutional rights to people outside of our country!!!
LOL, OK at least we're getting somewhere...
As I mentioned... the discussion regarding the Constitutionality of banning relgious or ethnic groups from entering the country is open for debate as the Supreme Court has not really weighed in on it. But it's clearly Anti-American. Would you agree with that?
As for Mr. Khan, speech, he clearly was making the statement in regards to trump's statement that he would ban all muslims or Muslim countries from entering. Which would then have resulted in his son not serving in the Military. It's a rhetorical leap, but it's effective and I think fits within the context of Mr. Khan's speech.
Quote:LOL, OK at least we're getting somewhere...
As I mentioned... the discussion regarding the Constitutionality of banning relgious or ethnic groups from entering the country is open for debate as the Supreme Court has not really weighed in on it. But it's clearly Anti-American. Would you agree with that?
As for Mr. Khan, speech, he clearly was making the statement in regards to trump's statement that he would ban all muslims or Muslim countries from entering. Which would then have resulted in his son not serving in the Military. It's a rhetorical leap, but it's effective and I think fits within the context of Mr. Khan's speech.
People think it's anti American to burn the flag, but that's not unconstitutional either.
Trump never claimed it would be a permanent ban on Muslims, just until further vetting is done. Since you love context so much, the context here is that while the Khans might have been delayed in entering the country, upon being properly vetted, they would have been allowed to enter the country thus still resulting in Khan Jr.'s military service. The only way they would have not been allowed to enter the country is if there was something shady in their background that would have precluded them from being approved. Since no one is making those claims, there wouldn't have been an issue.
Quote:People think it's anti American to burn the flag, but that's not unconstitutional either.
Trump never claimed it would be a permanent ban on Muslims, just until further vetting is done. Since you love context so much, the context here is that while the Khans might have been delayed in entering the country, upon being properly vetted, they would have been allowed to enter the country thus still resulting in Khan Jr.'s military service. The only way they would have not been allowed to enter the country is if there was something shady in their background that would have precluded them from being approved. Since no one is making those claims, there wouldn't have been an issue.
Turns out the guy was a major advocate for Sharia law and heaped praise upon Islamic leaders who absolutely abused human rights. Maybe Anchor is right, he WOULD be denied if Trump's temporary immigration ban from Islamic nations was enacted due to his radical beliefs.