Wrath of Dagon

That's not what I asked. Reread my question if you lack reading comprehension. Not having to discuss stuff with you isn't exactly a punishment, so like I said, stfu.

I don't know of any misleading Trump tweets from feb 11. As I said before, if you got evidence, show it, if you don't, stfu.

I guess you have some information that new refugees are being admitted and new visas are being issued?

I guess Piers doesn't want to get deported, so he came over to our side.

Alternative facts from the media: http://www.dailywire.com/news/13294/fake-news-rap-sheet-last-week-msm-was-caught-john-nolte Edit: More fake news: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporters-trip-all-over-themselves-botching-an-olympians-story-about-being-detained/article/2614645

I don't even remember referring to someone in the media as Stalinists, I usually refer to them as Democrat operatives. As far as education, quite a few of the more radical professors are Stalinists or at least lean in that direction, even though I don't remember actually talking about them either. The running joke is mostly because of KP's usual trolling btw.

Legal immigrants commit less crimes because they're screened before being allowed in and often come from less violent societies and higher social strata in their societies. Illegal immigrants commit more crimes and wouldn't commit any if they weren't here like they're supposed not to be.

Don't think I ever said anything about Stalinists being universal, but lets talk specifics, OK? Edit: For example, here's a specific nazi: http://heatst.com/culture-wars/black-lives-matter-leader-says-white-people-are-sub-human-and-suffer-from-genetic-defects/

I had just posted this link in the politics thread: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444839/washington-aims-destroy-steve-bannon-hysterical-character-assassination No, but it's the most egregious. Others vary in validity, but I didn't feel like going through all of them in detail.

Hmm, turns out you can reply in the wrong thread.

Who has a pro-fascist advocacy history and what's your evidence?

Democrat operatives try to take down Steve Bannon: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444839/washington-aims-destroy-steve-bannon-hysterical-character-assassination

Asian tourists stay away from France as concern over violence rises: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/13/coachload-korean-tourists-robbed-attack/ Russia is a safer destination, lol

Is this source approved by the brain trust? http://heatst.com/culture-wars/angela-merkel-will-expel-asylum-seekers-from-germany-as-support-for-muslim-migrants-collapses/

Funny, I heard that just about word for word on NPR today. No disclaimer about it being an opinion either. And that was after they spent about 15 minutes justifying rioting "One man's riot is another man's protest".

America needs a new Liberal Party: https://ricochet.com/409758/america-needs-liberal-party/ So a party consisting entirely of a handful of right-wing intellectuals then? Edit: Meanwhile, in spite of being a constant failure, Trump got all of his cabinet nominees confirmed so far, unlike Obama: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/democrats-are-losing-their-war-with-trump/ Thanks for doing away with filibuster Harry Reid!

Congress already passed the relevant law back in the 50's, which the comedic 9th circuit panel didn't even consider. EO was submitted to the DOJ legal counsel and was found legal. The 9th circuit panel already overturned the Congress' finding of the terrorist danger from the 7 listed countries, so they could equally as well overturn any law Congress passes on the subject.

There was an acting AG. The whole premise is that it's a temporary emergency measure until visa approval process can be made more secure.

Interesting: https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-kennedys-opinion-2015-case-looms-u-travel-163810427.html I predict the reasoning in the link I posted earlier about campaign speech will prevail on Kennedy.

Yes, your sneering obviously proves that you are right.

Only would be valid criticism if Trump quoted out of context. Edit: And Wittes' tweet doesn't even characterize his own article correctly: https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion

All he has to do is make it clear it doesn't apply to US residents, and the entire ruling becomes invalid.

Certainly Trump is not very careful with his facts, but the "fact checkers" are also biased and not above making up stuff. For example WP assumes Trump was talking about some fake story about Kuwait, but he was more likely responding to stories like this: https://www.zawya.com/mena/en/story/Dubais_police_chief_praises_Trumps_travel_ban-ZAWYA20170201073246/

Should probably come up with a better name.

Article arguing that Garland would've been better for Trump on this issue than Gorsuch: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2614444 What the author misses is that liberal judges are fine with executive overreach if it benefits liberal causes, but will stop even legitimate exercise of executive power if they don't like the result.