Trump: Boycott Apple

[protectionist]

not to mention the fact that part of our legal system is the right to appeal the order of a court to the highest court with jurisdiction. to hear the case.

i don't suspect apple will violate the order of the appeals court... which in this case will likely be the supreme court.

trump is a putz. and what's unforgivable is that he is intentionally trying to undermine the legal system.

Trump is not a putz, and don't you wish you had his $10 Billion. Now go pay off the collection agency.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I draw the line where violating the US Constitution is concerned. Whether you want to try and demean that by calling devices that store large volumes of personal information "techie toys", you are welcome to do so. The US Constitution still applies.

I draw the line where enemies of America (in a NUCLEAR AGE) vow to kill millions of Americans and destroy America, and appear to be fully capable of doing that. The application of the US Constitution is a subjective thing. Some people would say that jails and prisons are unconstitutional. And the govt has violated the constitution many times. Islam is a violation of the Constitution > Article 6, Section 2.

Do you want the govt, or others, to be able to get into your phone and take all your information?

The argument Apple has made is that once you've made a back door, then others will be able to manipulate this. The US govt says it wouldn't use this back door again. Oh, and we believe them, do we?

No, prisons are not unconstitutional, some people say a lot of stuff, doesn't make them right.

Islam isn't a violation of the Constitution. Your reading of Article 6 appears a little off.

 

[protectionist]

Trump wants us to boycott Apple, because Apple believes in freedom and security of the individual. Trump wants us to give everything away for the power of the government.

And they say Trump is different. No, he's not.

FALSE! Trump wants us to boycott Apple, because Apple ignores NATIONAL SECURITY. And Trump wants us to give up silly techie toys, so we don't get nuclear annihilated. Got it ?

 

[protectionist]

Do you want the govt, or others, to be able to get into your phone and take all your information?

The argument Apple has made is that once you've made a back door, then others will be able to manipulate this. The US govt says it wouldn't use this back door again. Oh, and we believe them, do we?

No, prisons are not unconstitutional, some people say a lot of stuff, doesn't make them right.

Islam isn't a violation of the Constitution. Your reading of Article 6 appears a little off.

I answered your first question this morning in Post # 86.

Islam is a supremacism. It is the largest supremacism in the world. Constitution Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) bans all supremacisms (other than the Constitution itself)

 

[protectionist]

Fascists always play the national security card to justify their authoritarian goosestepping. It's one of their defining characteristics.

Liberals always play the liberty card to justify their dangerous, reckless, disregard/negligence of national security. It's one of their defining characteristics

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trump wants us to boycott Apple, because Apple believes in freedom and security of the individual. Trump wants us to give everything away for the power of the government.

And they say Trump is different. No, he's not.

FALSE! Trump wants us to boycott Apple, because Apple ignores NATIONAL SECURITY. And Trump wants us to give up silly techie toys, so we don't get nuclear annihilated. Got it ?

National Security huh?

Here's a plan. If I can't get what I want, I create the conditions for me to be able to shout about national security in order to be able to get it, then the people will roll over and accept what I want.

Bush goes to Iraq, causes the US to be even more of a target to Muslims, then the attacks come, now we can have things to protect the people.

I'm sorry, NO I DON'T GET IT.

 

[mamooth]

Islam is a supremacism. It is the largest supremacism in the world. Constitution Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) bans all supremacisms (other than the Constitution itself)

You understand you just convinced everyone you're loony, right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fascists always play the national security card to justify their authoritarian goosestepping. It's one of their defining characteristics.

Liberals always play the liberty card to justify their dangerous, reckless, disregard/negligence of national security. It's one of their defining characteristics

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

Benjamin Franklin.

This isn't justifying dangerous, reckless disregard for national security. This is saying that there needs to be a line.

You can't protect people's freedom BY TAKING IT AWAY.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you want the govt, or others, to be able to get into your phone and take all your information?

The argument Apple has made is that once you've made a back door, then others will be able to manipulate this. The US govt says it wouldn't use this back door again. Oh, and we believe them, do we?

No, prisons are not unconstitutional, some people say a lot of stuff, doesn't make them right.

Islam isn't a violation of the Constitution. Your reading of Article 6 appears a little off.

I answered your first question this morning in Post # 86.

Islam is a supremacism. It is the largest supremacism in the world. Constitution Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) bans all supremacisms (other than the Constitution itself)

Islam is supremacist huh?

I just got back from holiday to a country which has a majority Muslim population. It also has Buddhists, Christians and Hindus playing a prominent part in society. They all manage to deal with the law first and religion second.

The country is Malaysia

Constitution of Malaysia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not the only country that does that. Many Muslims live in a world where they accept the law of the state over the law of their religion.

Just because you don't know that, doesn't mean your view is true.

 

[Rustic]

Apple needs to continue telling the federal government to **** off...

 

[WinterBorn]

I draw the line where violating the US Constitution is concerned. Whether you want to try and demean that by calling devices that store large volumes of personal information "techie toys", you are welcome to do so. The US Constitution still applies.

I draw the line where enemies of America (in a NUCLEAR AGE) vow to kill millions of Americans and destroy America, and appear to be fully capable of doing that. The application of the US Constitution is a subjective thing. Some people would say that jails and prisons are unconstitutional. And the govt has violated the constitution many times. Islam is a violation of the Constitution > Article 6, Section 2.

The 4th Amendment is not subjective in this case.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If you want to search or seize a person's belongings, you have to have a warrant. Period. It is basic.

A dozen or so noncombatant, US citizens are killed annually. And you think that warrants violating the 4th amendment.

What about the 2nd Amendment? Can't you claim 9,000 US citizens being killed warrants violating the 2nd amendment??

Or maybe you want to tell the families of the victims gun murder that their loved ones didn't matter enough to violate the US Constitution, despite the fact that there are hundreds of times more victims every year.

 

[WinterBorn]

Trump wants us to boycott Apple, because Apple believes in freedom and security of the individual. Trump wants us to give everything away for the power of the government.

And they say Trump is different. No, he's not.

FALSE! Trump wants us to boycott Apple, because Apple ignores NATIONAL SECURITY. And Trump wants us to give up silly techie toys, so we don't get nuclear annihilated. Got it ?

**** what Trump wants. I want a president who will honor his oath, and will not be lying when he pledges to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.".

And those "techie toys" have helped people report crimes, summon emergency services, and do much for many people's lives.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I draw the line where violating the US Constitution is concerned. Whether you want to try and demean that by calling devices that store large volumes of personal information "techie toys", you are welcome to do so. The US Constitution still applies.

I draw the line where enemies of America (in a NUCLEAR AGE) vow to kill millions of Americans and destroy America, and appear to be fully capable of doing that. The application of the US Constitution is a subjective thing. Some people would say that jails and prisons are unconstitutional. And the govt has violated the constitution many times. Islam is a violation of the Constitution > Article 6, Section 2.

The 4th Amendment is not subjective in this case.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If you want to search or seize a person's belongings, you have to have a warrant. Period. It is basic.

A dozen or so noncombatant, US citizens are killed annually. And you think that warrants violating the 4th amendment.

What about the 2nd Amendment? Can't you claim 9,000 US citizens being killed warrants violating the 2nd amendment??

Or maybe you want to tell the families of the victims gun murder that their loved ones didn't matter enough to violate the US Constitution, despite the fact that there are hundreds of times more victims every year.

It's that thing.

If a few people get killed it's all about national security.

If it's about guns, then it's not national security and as many people can die as necessary.

 

[Mac1958]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/19/donald-trump-apple-boycott/80626758/
Collision of elephants: Trump v. Apple

Boycott an American company, use your Korean Samsung phone.

Yeah, that's presidential.

Holy crap, this guy...
.

not to mention the fact that part of our legal system is the right to appeal the order of a court to the highest court with jurisdiction. to hear the case.

i don't suspect apple will violate the order of the appeals court... which in this case will likely ultimately be the supreme court.

trump is a putz. and what's unforgivable is that he is intentionally trying to undermine the legal system.

That would assume that he understands the legal system.

I think he's just babbling, tossing out whatever comes to mind at the moment, to make people cheer.
.

 

[protectionist]

National Security huh?

Here's a plan. If I can't get what I want, I create the conditions for me to be able to shout about national security in order to be able to get it, then the people will roll over and accept what I want.

Bush goes to Iraq, causes the US to be even more of a target to Muslims, then the attacks come, now we can have things to protect the people.

I'm sorry, NO I DON'T GET IT.

So you don't think the "conditions" exist for national security to be the primary issue of the USA ?

EARTH TO FW: With national security, the conditions ALWAYS exist. They exist 100% of the time, for EVERY nation. And they exist for the US now, more than any time in US history. We have a very wealthy enemy ISIS (among others in the intl jihad), who has vowed to destroy us...whose ancestor organization, al Qaeda has killed 3,000 of our people in a single attack, whose other ancestor org, al Qaeda in Iraq, has fought us on the battlefield, who now is connected to internal US terrorists (ex. San Bernardino killers), who is being invited into the US by "our" idiot president (tucked in with Syrian refugees), and all of this in a NUCLEAR age, with foreign-owned ports on our shores, whose shipping containers are being inspected 5% (last I heard).

This adds up to an almost positive nuclear destruction of the US, but I'm still remaining in a positive frame of mind that we'll survive (although I have no real logical basis to conclude that)

PS - what Bush did or didn't do is no longer the question (his whole family is now out of politics, hopefully for good). Now the issue is stopping Muslim terrorists from annihilating us (with your help)

 

[protectionist]

Islam is a supremacism. It is the largest supremacism in the world. Constitution Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) bans all supremacisms (other than the Constitution itself)

You understand you just convinced everyone you're loony, right?

Wrong. No matter what anyone is "convinced" or not convinced of, they must be convinced that the Supremacy Clause says this >> "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land." That forbids all other entities from claiming supremacy. Problem with Islam is, it does just that. Got it , now ?

 

[protectionist]

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

Benjamin Franklin.

This isn't justifying dangerous, reckless disregard for national security. This is saying that there needs to be a line.

You can't protect people's freedom BY TAKING IT AWAY.

FALSE! This IS justifying dangerous, reckless disregard for national security. And the techie freaks are so in love with their little toys, that they can't see anything else around them but those silly toys, and all their needless properties.

And I know what Benjamin Franklin said. You're about the 300th person who has read me that quote. I know exactly what he said. He was wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

National Security huh?

Here's a plan. If I can't get what I want, I create the conditions for me to be able to shout about national security in order to be able to get it, then the people will roll over and accept what I want.

Bush goes to Iraq, causes the US to be even more of a target to Muslims, then the attacks come, now we can have things to protect the people.

I'm sorry, NO I DON'T GET IT.

So you don't think the "conditions" exist for national security to be the primary issue of the USA ?

EARTH TO FW: With national security, the conditions ALWAYS exist. They exist 100% of the time, for EVERY nation. And they exist for the US now, more than any time in US history. We have a very wealthy enemy ISIS (among others in the intl jihad), who has vowed to destroy us...whose ancestor organization, al Qaeda has killed 3,000 of our people in a single attack, whose other ancestor org, al Qaeda in Iraq, has fought us on the battlefield, who now is connected to internal US terrorists (ex. San Bernardino killers), who is being invited into the US by "our" idiot president (tucked in with Syrian refugees), and all of this in a NUCLEAR age, with foreign-owned ports on our shores, whose shipping containers are being inspected 5% (last I heard).

This adds up to an almost positive nuclear destruction of the US, but I'm still remaining in a positive frame of mind that we'll survive (although I have no real logical basis to conclude that)

PS - what Bush did or didn't do is no longer the question (his whole family is now out of politics, hopefully for good). Now the issue is stopping Muslim terrorists from annihilating us (with your help)

I do think there are conditions for national security to be an issue.

However, I don't just think that national security should instantly depose the rights and freedoms the people have.
I also don't agree with certain people, like Bush, going to war and creating the environment with which to try and justify the taking of rights and freedoms.

If you take the rights and freedoms away from people, then you've already lost.

If they aim to set of nuclear bombs, then you're going to have to be a lot smarter than to simply take away the rights and freedoms of the ordinary Americans.

Sure, what Bush did is something in the past. But no doubt will be something that future generations will **** up time and again. We never learn from past mistakes. Making Muslims more and more angry isn't the way to "win" this war. The only way to win this war is to stop the anger. The more Muslims become angry, the harder it will be for the US to win.

Making a back door to iPhones will probably just end up like another Iraq and Afghanistan where the US hand over weapons to these groups, and then they just end up using them against the US.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fascists always play the national security card to justify their authoritarian goosestepping. It's one of their defining characteristics.

Liberals always play the liberty card to justify their dangerous, reckless, disregard/negligence of national security. It's one of their defining characteristics

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

Benjamin Franklin.

This isn't justifying dangerous, reckless disregard for national security. This is saying that there needs to be a line.

You can't protect people's freedom BY TAKING IT AWAY.

FALSE! This IS justifying dangerous, reckless disregard for national security. And the techie freaks are so in love with their little toys, that they can't see anything else around them but those silly toys, and all their needless properties.

No offence, but people have been justifying dangerous, reckless disregard for national security for a long time. Trump is one of these, and the Republican Party seem to like him enough to put him up for president.

So, basically you're justifying taking away people's rights and freedoms in order to protect the people from those who would take away their rights and freedoms?

I don't get it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Islam is a supremacism. It is the largest supremacism in the world. Constitution Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause) bans all supremacisms (other than the Constitution itself)

You understand you just convinced everyone you're loony, right?

Wrong. No matter what anyone is "convinced" or not convinced of, they must be convinced that the Supremacy Clause says this >> "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land." That forbids all other entities from claiming supremacy. Problem with Islam is, it does just that. Got it , now ?

So, the Constitution is the law of the land, except when national security becomes an issue, in which case, **** the constitution?