Ponderable

espola said:
I looked for something about Santa Monica in the news. The top item was a restaurant that had hired a painter to put up a mural portrait of the late Mr. Bourdain.

That's not what you meant?
Click to expand...
Not at all, but you being clueless is no surprise. (magoo)
Bourdain and I have much more in common than probably anyone you know.
(except for the suicide thing)
That being said, its a fantastic rendition and I do appreciate you posting it.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
Not at all, but you being clueless is no surprise. (magoo)
Bourdain and I have much more in common than probably anyone you know.
(except for the suicide thing)
That being said, its a fantastic rendition and I do appreciate you posting it.
Click to expand...

In common?

Bourdain was an outspoken critic of Trump, having previously described the president as someone who had "not left me with a favorable impression" and compared Trump's popularity to that of the 1930s Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.

Seven months before the 2016 election, Bourdain told Business Insider's Richard Feloni: "Mussolini served his country in combat and did a credible job, and I don't think you could say that about, you know, this guy," referring to Trump.

http://www.businessinsider.com/anth...but-made-effort-to-meet-his-supporters-2018-6​
 
espola said:
In common?

Bourdain was an outspoken critic of Trump, having previously described the president as someone who had "not left me with a favorable impression" and compared Trump's popularity to that of the 1930s Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.

Seven months before the 2016 election, Bourdain told Business Insider's Richard Feloni: "Mussolini served his country in combat and did a credible job, and I don't think you could say that about, you know, this guy," referring to Trump.

http://www.businessinsider.com/anth...but-made-effort-to-meet-his-supporters-2018-6​
Click to expand...
Politics does not define me, nor did it define Bourdain.
Does it define you?, ..
That appears to be the case.

Bourdain and I appreciate, and (appreciated) those things in life that transcend the shallow pool of political strife.
I cannot however, grasp the despair he must have wrestled with.
My life is too precious to me.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
Politics does not define me, nor did it define Bourdain.
Does it define you?, ..
That appears to be the case.

Bourdain and I appreciate, and (appreciated) those things in life that transcend the shallow pool of political strife.
I cannot however, grasp the despair he must have wrestled with.
My life is too precious to me.
Click to expand...

So what is the similarity then? Do you drink heavily? Are you a recovering heroin addict? Would you dine with Obama?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/travel/2.../anthony-bourdains-parts-uknown-best-moments/
 


Trump's travel ban is constitutional
  • The ruling concerned the third version of President Trump's travel restriction, which was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to a "Muslim ban."
  • In the 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court finds that Trump's travel restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority.
  • "The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts says. "The text says nothing about religion."



In the 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's travel restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority. The court rejected claims that the ban was motivated by religious hostility.

"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."

The case, Trump v. Hawaii, has been central to the administration's travel policy, presenting a key test of the president's campaign promise to restrict immigration and secure America's borders.

The court sided with the government, which argued in April that the restriction "would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine."

Roberts agreed with that argument. Though the ban applies to five countries with Muslim majority populations, "that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility," Roberts wrote, noting that those five countries amount to only 8 percent of the world's Muslim population.

During oral arguments in April, Katyal cited Trump's postelection tweets about the issue, and argued that the travel restriction amounted to a "Muslim ban."

The court addressed those statements, writing that "the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements."

"It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility," Roberts wrote. "In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself."

While the court upheld Trump's travel restriction, Roberts noted that the ruling did not reflect the court's judgment on the "soundness" of the policy.
entire article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html
 
Last edited:
Lion Eyes said:

Trump's travel ban is constitutional
  • The ruling concerned the third version of President Trump's travel restriction, which was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to a "Muslim ban."
  • In the 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court finds that Trump's travel restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority.
  • "The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts says. "The text says nothing about religion."



In the 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's travel restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority. The court rejected claims that the ban was motivated by religious hostility.

"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."

The case, Trump v. Hawaii, has been central to the administration's travel policy, presenting a key test of the president's campaign promise to restrict immigration and secure America's borders.

The court sided with the government, which argued in April that the restriction "would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine."

Roberts agreed with that argument. Though the ban applies to five countries with Muslim majority populations, "that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility," Roberts wrote, noting that those five countries amount to only 8 percent of the world's Muslim population.

During oral arguments in April, Katyal cited Trump's postelection tweets about the issue, and argued that the travel restriction amounted to a "Muslim ban."

The court addressed those statements, writing that "the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements."

"It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility," Roberts wrote. "In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself."

While the court upheld Trump's travel restriction, Roberts noted that the ruling did not reflect the court's judgment on the "soundness" of the policy.
entire article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html
Click to expand...
Oh, now you want to believe in The Constitution . . . and, so now, what of the Title of Nobilities clause?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top