See above- I am new at this quoting. Please bear with me.
new here too, how y’all quote web pages and news stories? haven’t figured that out yet. I got a error message. But I digress.
If I quoted a “noted conservative scholar” would y’all just fold your cards? oh golly he’s quoting a noted scholar, he must be right.
I don’t think Im the one who keeps straying from the OP. Noam Chomsky, really? I gotta debate Noam Chomsky now? 1853 use of Jack booted thugs. Is the ACLU a reliable source of independent political opinion?
Concentration camps are coming, unless we fight back.
Concentration camps are not coming whether or not you fight back. I admire govt skepticism and don’t trust gov’t to do the right thing always. But Federal law enforcement has their authority under the constitution, and Trump is taking, in my opinion an expansive interpretation, but its legal.
I don’t agree with Roger Stones sentence being commuted but its legal. (Not that I want to debate the Roger Stone Communtation in this this thread)
You made a claim. You didn’t back it up. Others cited that your claim was wrong, and rather than come up with your own cites, or give an argument as to what was wrong with the cite, you just dismissed it out of hand based on your political bias.
You have brought absolutely nothing to your side of the argument. You are asserting that because you have heard right wing people use this term which refers to agents of a totalitarian govt, that they are the only ones allowed to use it.
You even said effectively, “He’s quite the linguist, but what does he know about language?”
If you cited a person within their area of expertise, I would not dismiss them simply because I disagreed with their politics, even if they were conservative.
Now, if you had said something like, “My alt-right friends use that term so much, that it’s lost its meaning, and sounds to me like just hyperbole.” then that would be an acceptable and possibly valid argument.
Anyway, that’s my last part on this exchange, because frankly, it’s pretty stupid. It’s like arguing about whether water is wet with someone who doesn’t trust the meteorologist.
Those two sentences contradict each other. If you want to say “If concentration camps are coming, they will whether you fight back or not”, then I would probably agree. I am not so powerful that I could prevent it. But your assertion that “it can never happen here” is baseless, especially when you admit that you don’t trust the govt to always do the right thing.
And my opinion, and the opinion of the ACLU, is that his expansive interpretation of unitary executive theory is not actually legal.
The fact that the ACLU shares your opinion does not impress me. I don’t know why you think it should. The US Department of Justice shares my opinion, you don’t seemed swayed by that.
The ACLU is a reliable source of constitutional legal opinion. It is right there in American+Civil Liberties. Don’t let the Union thing throw you.
How do you italicize? I wanna italicize opinion instead of legal in that. It will prove a point.
I think the problem here is that you for some reason think I am trying to impress you.
I truly hope that that is not your goal.
But yeah, the ACLU has lawyers that can put the case more specifically and succinctly than I. I can make various arguments to the effect, but if you want a legalese breakdown of the specifics, you are welcome to read the cite that I provided.
The DOJ has been wrong before, many, many times, under pretty much all administrations. I doubt that there has been an administration since Mr. Tippecanoe and pneumonia too that made it through their term without being successfully sued at some point due to unconstitutional executive orders.
Nothing legal is ever certain, there is no such thing as a slam dunk. However, there are very powerful and compelling arguments, of which have been laid out here, and can be read in specific at the provided cites, to say that the DOJ and administration is wrong on this.
Until a court rules, then that is all either of us have, an opinion as to which argument is more compelling. That you do not find that argument impressive matters not an iota to me. I only care about what a judge thinks.
Unless you actually are a federal judge with jurisdiction that would cover these lawsuits. Then well…, hey, want some cake?
single pair of ‘*’ will italicize, double bolds.
like * italicize * but without the spaces.
On my iPad (IOS) I word or words I want to italicize-in the quote box it doesn’t italicize but when you post it does.
Wait, I just realized the asterisks aren’t going to show once this is posted 
slaps face:-put an asterisk then the words or word then asterisk.
Enjoy-This is the only formatting I have figured out how to do.
Thanks
And so has the The ACLU.
Now I gotta debate the William Henry Harrison administration?
thanks from the bottom of my pea-picking little heart.
See, I knew we could all play nice.
While this legal issue is far from over, the above federal judge seemed to take my side. I am a little smug that I used the “dispappeared” argument as well, before the federal judge. I have no legal training.
And I’d add, lot of hyperbolic arguments here.
I enjoy intellectual debates. We might not agree but I appreciate the conversation.
Me too. Glad to make your acquaintance :doff of hat:
You too k9bfriender
We might not agree but I appreciate the convesration