Obtuse1

quote:

---

2. 6,000 lbs for a boat is ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

If it can stop the Commie Muslim takeover of our nation, its a step that isnt too far.

---

When you are willing to set aside the Constitution for personal expedience, you have to accept that other people will do the same, often to your detriment.

Multiple times in this thread I have said where this battle must be fought, but people still keep going down the unconstitutional route.

quote:

---

Even this Scotus...

Telling.

---

So you are in favor of an activist court that would change the plain meaning of the Constitution when it suits you; is that fair?

quote:

---

It was super obvious to them.

---

You are suggesting the founders were unaware of the pagan religions:

Penda of Mercia

Arwald of Wight

The wars with the Vikings in the middle 9th century

You are saying they didn't know about Judaism

You are saying they didn't know about Islam, so they were unaware of the Crusades

They had no idea what Richard the Lionheart and Edward I were fighting against

Your argument relies on accepting the framers cumulatively were poorly educated, incredibly ignorant, and lacked any precision of language. Is that really what you want to suggest?

Your other argument is specious. They were fully aware of multiple other religions, which simply requires historical knowledge, you man/woman argument requires a crystal ball. Two entirely different things.

They could easily have used Christianity if that is what they meant; I think it is clear that is not what they meant; they weren't that ignorant.

I would suggest pee breaks after the crew talks about pissing off Poseidon but the best time would be after the discussion of Tiresias' prophecy. The first is at about 1 hour; the second is probably a little more than an hour and a half in.

quote:

---

The threat is a dangerous combo of Islam and commies. The goal is to preserve our culture, freedoms and securities. Allowing Muslims to threaten our way of life is a much dumber option.

---

I gave the keys to the kingdom on the second page of this thread. Without changing the Constitution, it is almost impossible to deal with unless or until they break constitutional laws, which may be too late. You have to deal with it at the border. People are trying to make the solution far more difficult than it needs to be, and the internal fight against a religion will require a change in the Constitution or a major departure in its interpretation, and both will start a cavalcade of unintended consequences.

Pretty much everyone in this thread is trying to make the solution as difficult as possible. Don't break things you don't have to break to get a solution you want; with a modicum of thought, you realize don't have to be broken.

quote:

---

The Constitution never anticipated an invasion by Muslims or the Third World.

---

That is a dangerous line of thinking. Do you think the drafters of the Constitution anticipated a suppressed select-fire AR platform chambered in .458 SOCOM?

I thought it was an excellent doc and the Kortney time on screen made perfect sense and wasn't "Kardashian" at all.

Losing his two best friends the way he did was brutal. I didn't know the DJ AM connection.

quote:

---

This is the way around the 1st amendment

The Constitution doesn’t say what a religion is

---

It is unlikely this would work in that it would almost be impossible to make a convincing argument that Islam isn't a religion. Now you could argue that there is something else (yet unnamed AFAIK, besides maybe radical Islamist) that you could define outside of religion and get it recognized as a non-religious movement like, say, communism.

quote:

---

Some states have banned communism. Islam is next.

---

AFAIK the only banning of communism on the books of any state prevents public office and working for the government. These are all from the 50s and 60s. I assume that is what you mean when you say ban. The problem is while they are still on the books in some states (I think AL may be one) they were all held unconstitutional in a string of cases from the 60s. Nostrand and Robel are two that come to mind.

The only constitutional way to handle this is just like birthright citizenship, which is at the border. As the law stands today, once they are in the country, they have constitutional rights. You could probably change state laws/constitutions to limit governmental positions to natural-born citizens but that doesn't impact second-generation, and it cuts both ways for people like Arnold.

quote:

---

I don’t think there is an easy and politically palatable solution, which is why the administration seems completely full of shite.

---

When you can't find an off-ramp, build one. IMO what he should do is have a targeting package built up with everything remotely related to their nuclear industry and bomb the crap out of it for two nights. Then on the third day come out and explain that as a result of the earlier bombings, Iran was forced to move and consolidate their dwindling nuclear assets, and intelligence was able to track and locate those assets and we have now destroyed them all and set their nuclear aspirations back to square one. "I have saved not only the US public from nuclear terror but all the citizens of Earth". Then with this key mission accomplished, pull back hope the SoH normalizes or someone else decides to handle the issue. The faithful would rejoice, the skeptical would roll their eyes and the haters would fire off mean tweets/forum posts/YT videos and in 2 weeks it would be forgotten until mid-October when it would pop back up which is will no matter what.