Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 355 of 370 FirstFirst ... 255 305 345 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 365 ... LastLast
Results 3,541 to 3,550 of 3697
  1. #3541
    Grandmaster BugI02's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    If Trump wants to do it, it must be wrong/sinister/racist
    You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you

  2. #3542
    Grandmaster BugI02's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I'm starting to see crawfishing on the language, most recently from NPR

    Now the claim is that the question hasn't been asked of every census taker because it was either asked using different phraseology and/or only on the long form

    Even WaPo has resorted to calling Kashoggi a "contributing columnist" when their claims became unsupportable by the facts. Same thing on the citizenship question - back and fill
    You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you

  3. #3543
    Grandmaster Sylvain's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2A_Tom View Post
    Did question 9 question your status, Visa, work document, resident or illegal.


    I just realized in the last few posts that this is not about putting the question on the Census but putting it BACK on the Census.
    I don't remember.I don't thing I provided any proof of status.

    I just know you had to include anyone living in the house, even temporarily.

    At first I thought it was only for US citizens (it seemed obvious).I remember asking to a census person if I had to be counted as living in the house even though I was a foreign citizen, staying there as a tourist.

    I was told everyone had to be counted.


  4. #3544
    Le mot juste 2A_Tom's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I have been an adult (majority) for 45 years and 2010 is the first time I ever saw a Census form.




  5. #3545
    Grandmaster Sylvain's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JettaKnight View Post
    I'll admit it: Ditto.


    Which makes this kerfuffle even more baffling.
    You can see all the questions from all the different years there.

    https://www.census.gov/history/www/t...opulation.html

    Citizenship was asked in 2000, 1990 and earlier.

    1. In what U.S. State or foreign country was this person born?
    2. Is this person a citizen of the United States?
    3. If this person was not born in the United States, when did this person come to the United States to stay?
    Just not included in 2010.

    In 1940:

    1. If foreign born, is the person a citizen?
    They used to ask how many slaves were owned by the free white males in the family in 1840.

  6. #3546
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JettaKnight View Post
    I'll admit it: Ditto.


    Which makes this kerfuffle even more baffling.
    Importantly, there are certain court orders involved at the present time.

    It has been on the census (in some form) on and off. But none of those times, that I'm aware of, has SCOTUS opined that the administration should justify its use.

    It was not planned to be on the 2020 census until Trump took office.

    As someone once said, elections have consequences. If POTUS for the first half of a decade decides it won't be on the census, then its hard to get it on there in the last couple years of the decade.

    Personally, my concern is the rule of law as determined by SCOTUS. If this executive order is a foil that allows the lawyers to make arguments in emergency pleadings, then... ok... maybe. (Professionally, I'm pretty sure that doesn't require an EO; affidavits get done and pleadings get filed and then the court decides.) But, if the EO is intended to actually do something that courts have told the administration not to do, then that's a problem.

    I understand why the question is on there - both the substance for it and the pretext - and don't really care whether it is on there or not.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  7. #3547
    Marksman indyblue's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    Back in the day, I think we used OpenCVS on a couple projects. I liked it, but didn't do much with the source code side.
    I remember UNIX SCCM.

    Showing my age.
    NRA Life Member

  8. #3548
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by indyblue View Post
    I remember UNIX SCCM.

    Showing my age.
    I remember FORTRAN.

    Ok. Not really. I remember learning FORTRAN.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  9. #3549
    INGO Homebrewer JettaKnight's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    Importantly, there are certain court orders involved at the present time.

    It has been on the census (in some form) on and off. But none of those times, that I'm aware of, has SCOTUS opined that the administration should justify its use.

    It was not planned to be on the 2020 census until Trump took office.

    As someone once said, elections have consequences. If POTUS for the first half of a decade decides it won't be on the census, then its hard to get it on there in the last couple years of the decade.

    Personally, my concern is the rule of law as determined by SCOTUS. If this executive order is a foil that allows the lawyers to make arguments in emergency pleadings, then... ok... maybe. (Professionally, I'm pretty sure that doesn't require an EO; affidavits get done and pleadings get filed and then the court decides.) But, if the EO is intended to actually do something that courts have told the administration not to do, then that's a problem.

    I understand why the question is on there - both the substance for it and the pretext - and don't really care whether it is on there or not.
    I'm kinda there with you.

    I get IndyDave & Bug's point, but lessening the flow of tax dollars (which by no means is certain) to CA and other "illegal rich" states isn't worth sacrificing the checks and balance system we have.
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln
    Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?

  10. #3550
    Grandmaster BugI02's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    Importantly, there are certain court orders involved at the present time.

    It has been on the census (in some form) on and off. But none of those times, that I'm aware of, has SCOTUS opined that the administration should justify its use.

    It was not planned to be on the 2020 census until Trump took office.

    As someone once said, elections have consequences. If POTUS for the first half of a decade decides it won't be on the census, then its hard to get it on there in the last couple years of the decade.

    Personally, my concern is the rule of law as determined by SCOTUS. If this executive order is a foil that allows the lawyers to make arguments in emergency pleadings, then... ok... maybe. (Professionally, I'm pretty sure that doesn't require an EO; affidavits get done and pleadings get filed and then the court decides.) But, if the EO is intended to actually do something that courts have told the administration not to do, then that's a problem.

    I understand why the question is on there - both the substance for it and the pretext - and don't really care whether it is on there or not.

    Again, I think you are not accurately delineating the issues the supreme court actually decided in order to make an EO seem like it would be an unconstitutional action. My understanding is that the ruling did not deal with the constitutionality of a citizenship question at all, but only dealt with the actions by Ross and the questions surrounding them, and that question had been returned to the lower court for study, briefing and arguments. I tried reading the actual SCOTUS decision but gave up around page 19, it is too opaque to even quickly determine what if anything they were enjoining, or if they were merely upholding the injunction of the lower court. I am unaware that any of the constitutional issue were in any way 'decided'. Perhaps you could post the relevant passages from the courts ruling that support your position
    You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge