# Nonsense;



## red1 (Jun 19, 2007)

I have a lot of Muslim friends through aerospace work here and there. Also Russians, Jews, one of my more interesting acquaintances is Hungarian.

So don trumph proposes no Muslims into the country..and I take offense to that knowing some of my friends will be expecting family coming in for the holidays.

Doesn't his idea bother anyone else?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

What holiday?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bothers me. At first I was taken aback, but then I remembered I was dealing with a businessman. His gross overstatement counters Obama's gross understatement. His "slam the door shut" is in response to Obama's "tear the door off the hinges" policy. One extremely ridiculous idea to counter the opposing forces ridiculous idea.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

HDRider said:


> What holiday?


That was my question too..... Ramadan was in June/July in 2015 and it's also in June/July 2016..... True Muslims do not celebrate Christmas nor do they have any major religious holidays occurring in December this year.

I was married to a "moderate" Muslim from Iran very briefly when I was young & stupid. He and his family gave great lip service to the "we're Americans, we're assimilated...." but all of them felt it was their duty to beat their wives and to look down upon anyone who was not Muslim. In fact my ex severely beat his next wife while she was still laying in the hospital mere hours after she delivered their daughter, because mothers who do not provide a male child as the firstborn are to be beaten per Allah.... Mind you this man is a doctor who from a scientific perspective knows that the male determines the sex of a baby, not the woman, but his "moderate" religious views still required him to discipline his wife for not giving him a firstborn son.

I worked with a "moderate" Muslim man at my last job, and he was no better. Refused to address any of his female coworkers by our names, spoke of all of us in a derogatory manner, wouldn't consider any of our input during meetings, and actually said when our female boss suggested something "she is just a woman, her input in this matter is not necessary". He lasted less than 6 months....our largely military client base was understandably infuriated when he lectured all the students on 9/11 about how it was entirely the American's fault and that we deserved to be killed because we opposed Allah.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

red1 said:


> I have a lot of Muslim friends through aerospace work here and there. Also Russians, Jews, one of my more interesting acquaintances is Hungarian.
> 
> So don trumph proposes no Muslims into the country..and I take offense to that knowing some of my friends will be expecting family coming in for the holidays.
> 
> *Doesn't his idea bother anyone else*?



It bothers me a great deal. The moment I saw him utter those words on TV, all I could think was that he'd require some people to start sewing yellow crescents onto their coats. We all know how that turned out. 

Of course I'm also sorry that it caused an element of his followers (and others) to get a warm, fuzzy feeling deep inside themselves.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It's ridiculous. Even more ridiculous that people are cheering for it. Trump is the Jerry Springer of politics - he has figured out how to appeal to the lowest common denominator of humanity.

Thinking, oh we'll just segregate ourselves from anyone who is Muslim and we'll be safe from terrorism, is the same logic that thinks if we ban guns we'll all be safer. A fantasy in both cases. 

The genie is out of the bottle, Pandora's box has been opened, and we're going to have to deal with the consequences. We already have a lot of Muslims in our population and we're going to get more. We have to deal with Muslim countries in our foreign policy and diplomatic relations. So as individuals and as a nation we have to deal with it. Let's all put on our big boy and girl panties and figure this out.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The more and more of this that will happen with people dissing him the stronger Donald Trump seems to get. He is now very high in the polls. These that diss him are so afraid of their shadows in the first place they hate big changes. Well that is what it will take. Huge changes to save this country.

It is just as bad to have so many on the extreme right as it is on the extreme left. One must have both sides closer together and that is move closer to the center. Everyone in this country AND THIS Country as well will be better off if this can take place. Extremes on both sides are what is tearing this country apart. And all this nonsense talk about a revolution is poppy cock. All that has to be done is move closer to the center, and if that means tough talk and tough sledding ahead so be it. And closing the boarding is one step in getting this country healed and after that then open it up and SCREEN and VET big time, and if that means getting background research on some of the bad ones so be it. And that is what may have to take place. Not saying it HAS TO like Trump said just has to be kept as a last resort only.
And some temper tantrum from across the seas is only going to make Trump even stronger~!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Ridiculous are those who have witnessed the same litany multiple times of a Muslim terrorist attack, followed by statements from neighbors about their shock at that particular person, who was so polite and helpful, having turned out to be a terrorist, followed by the government and Muslim authorities pointing out that such behavior was really anti islamic, followed by the media publishing such horrendous bigotry as graffiti on a mosque and still never question the Muslims they personally know would never, ever do such a thing and any attempt to imply otherwise is sheer ignorance. 
If there weren't such mindless political correctness to overcome in addition to the terrorists themselves, then reason might have a chance of prevailing. As it is, no amount of reason seems to move those who persist in ignoring every reality in preference to believing in an untarnished fantasy just because it is as easy an answer as those who subscribe to the opposite extreme.
Just as bad and just as stupid.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Wonder if Trump can find a way to ban all politicians from the US...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Trump knows that Americans want the emotional, poorly thought out response. Obama thinks 30,000 gun deaths is worthy of an emotional national outcry, but 32,000 automobile deaths is just an accident... Trump has to go the other way, MORE guns. It's absolutely ludicrous. And it's because most Americans today are too lazy to get into the details, and they're too lazy to set their emotions aside long enough to be objective.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Trump is a blowhard. I am sure he doesn't believe most of what he says, but, he knows how to give a crowd what it wants.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Trump never said ban all Muslims for good. He said stop Muslim immigration until our government figures out how to do it properly (safely). He is right. No one but Obama and his buddies will promise you these "refugees" are properly vetted. No one can because it is impossible. Congress has been debating a bill to do exactly what Trump proposes. It makes absolutely no sense to allow people into our country knowing a small percentage of them are bent on killing us. How many of you Trump bashers would want government to relocate 1000 pardoned convicted murderers into your community even if only 1% will murder again?


----------



## farmgal (Nov 12, 2005)

Liberals are destroying our country. That woman who just shot up that Christmas party was " properly vetted". Really? With in hours they found out her address didn't even exist. What a bunch of lies!! 

Not one Muslim has stepped up to help stop the terrorism in our country since 9/11. Coincidence? No. 80% of mosques teach destroy us. 26,000 terrorist acts since 9/11. All going back to one of those mosques. 

Do you research liberals. There's a law on immigration. Banning all organizations who plan to over throw America public law 414. Chapter 2 sec 212. We should restrict. 

Why do they come here if they are against everything we stand for??? Why? To attempt to destroy us from The inside. It's not a religion it's a brainwashed theology.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And the border WAS closed way back when.The 1924 Act also established the "consular control system" of immigration, which divided responsibility for immigration between the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It mandated that no alien should be allowed to enter the United States without a valid immigration visa issued by an American consular officer abroad.

It provided that no alien ineligible to become a citizen could be admitted to the United States as an immigrant. This was aimed primarily at Japanese and Chinese aliens (Substitute Muslim and there you have it ) It imposed fines on transportation companies who landed aliens in violation of U.S. immigration laws.
It HAS been done before it CAN be done again now. Another way is to limit said goings on to 1% and no more then 2% come into this country Period~1


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

farmgal said:


> Liberals are destroying our country. That woman who just shot up that Christmas party was " properly vetted". Really? With in hours they found out her address didn't even exist. What a bunch of lies!!
> 
> Not one Muslim has stepped up to help stop the terrorism in our country since 9/11. Coincidence? No. 80% of mosques teach destroy us. 26,000 terrorist acts since 9/11. All going back to one of those mosques.
> 
> ...


26,000 terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11? That would be over 150 a year. I have to say I really doubt that or I am missing approximately 145 a year on average.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

HDRider said:


> What holiday?


CHRISTmas, of course!!!


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

bluemoonluck said:


> That was my question too..... Ramadan was in June/July in 2015 and it's also in June/July 2016..... True Muslims do not celebrate Christmas nor do they have any major religious holidays occurring in December this year.
> 
> I was married to a "moderate" Muslim from Iran very briefly when I was young & stupid. He and his family gave great lip service to the "we're Americans, we're assimilated...." but all of them felt it was their duty to beat their wives and to look down upon anyone who was not Muslim. In fact my ex severely beat his next wife while she was still laying in the hospital mere hours after she delivered their daughter, because mothers who do not provide a male child as the firstborn are to be beaten per Allah.... Mind you this man is a doctor who from a scientific perspective knows that the male determines the sex of a baby, not the woman, but his "moderate" religious views still required him to discipline his wife for not giving him a firstborn son.
> 
> I worked with a "moderate" Muslim man at my last job, and he was no better. Refused to address any of his female coworkers by our names, spoke of all of us in a derogatory manner, wouldn't consider any of our input during meetings, and actually said when our female boss suggested something "she is just a woman, her input in this matter is not necessary". He lasted less than 6 months....our largely military client base was understandably infuriated when he lectured all the students on 9/11 about how it was entirely the American's fault and that we deserved to be killed because we opposed Allah.


Yikes.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Personally, I'm, embarrassed for the Republican party.

A modern day _witch hunt_, is not going to play out well, IMO.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

If one were to consider the logical "best" course then banning Muslims for now would seem prudent. Then to get the records straight on those that have been allowed into our country and establish a prudent method of vetting those that have a need or desire to enter our country for short or long duration reasons. To scream about it being unfair is to close your eyes to the amount of damage that can be done. 

As an added side effect, if there are any False Flags then this might shine a brighter light on any future occurrences...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> establish a prudent method of vetting


This is just a joke used by both DEM and GOP pols, who don't have the guts to proclaim "NO Muslims", unless they are just plain ignorant.

No test will ever determine whether someone has something in their head or heart. What about when they get a "clean bill" and then get sick of the Islamophobia, spewed by haters, at a later date?

"Are you a Muslims terrorist sympathizer?"

"Why no, I am not!"

"ok, you're good"


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

What he said was to ban them until the government got its act together -- ie came up with an actual vetting plan that works and is consistent - He's 100% correct. 
No rational person could possibly disagree with that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> What he said was to ban them until the government got its act together -- ie came up with an actual vetting plan that works and is consistent - He's 100% correct.
> No rational person could possibly disagree with that.


Key word "rational". 

Obviously many disagree, vehemently.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Well.. I can give him credit on knowing how to get the back woods ******* vote...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No rational person could possibly disagree with that.


That's just a word game used to imply anyone who doesn't agree must be irrational
It's the same as saying "common sense gun control"; empty, condescending rhetoric.

No rational person really thinks Trump is "presidential"


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Muslims have a right to immigrate to anywhere. You cant refuse a right. They have immunity to any vetting system. Ask Obama.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's just a word game used to imply anyone who doesn't agree must be irrational
> It's the same as saying "common sense gun control"; empty, condescending rhetoric.
> 
> No rational person really thinks Trump is "presidential"


So do you believe there should NOT be proper vetting of immigrants?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> So do you believe there should NOT be proper vetting of immigrants?


I believe it won't change anything at all, just like all the gun laws in CA didn't stop the shooting


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> What he said was to ban them until the government got its act together -- ie came up with an actual vetting plan that works and is consistent - He's 100% correct.
> No rational person could possibly disagree with that.


Since it's an oft repeated mantra here that government is incompetent and incapable of running even the simplest program well how exactly wou&#322;d government "get its act together" over this? Without clearly set outcomes this would amount to an endless ban.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's just a word game used to imply anyone who doesn't agree must be irrational
> It's the same as saying "common sense gun control"; empty, condescending rhetoric.
> 
> No rational person really thinks Trump is "presidential"


To be honest, in the full field of candidates, there it isn't a ton that I've seen that screams " presidential" to me from the lot if them. I've heard a few speak a few times, and thought presidential, but by and large, not much presidential about the big group of em IMO.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Since it's an oft repeated mantra here that government is incompetent and incapable of running even the simplest program well how exactly wou&#322;d government "get its act together" over this? Without clearly set outcomes this would amount to an endless ban.



Nonsense. The Constitutional duty of the federal government is primarily to protect America. If people from any country cannot be properly vetted, they should not be allowed in, period. Government needs to stop spending its time collecting data on people who have lived here for generations and focus on the problem people. It ain't blacks, whites, or Mexicans doing the terror attacks. It is Muslims. Vet and monitor the Muslims that come in. Yea, it's profiling. Don't you wish the Malik woman had been vetted more thoroughly? They're now saying she had been radicalized for a long time. Maybe she influenced him? There is a rat's nest of people who either knew or should have known this attack was going to happen.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Well, it appears that Trump was ahead of the other Representatives with his excluding Arabic people... Seems as if a lot of people agree with his idea...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/polit...rogram-house1034PMVODtopPhoto&linkId=19423748


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Shine said:


> Well, it appears that Trump was ahead of the other Representatives with his excluding Arabic people... Seems as if a lot of people agree with his idea...
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/polit...rogram-house1034PMVODtopPhoto&linkId=19423748


It is an extremely worrisome situation. I am increasingly disillusioned with the IQ of the general populous and their ability to make good decisions.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wiscto said:


> Trump knows that Americans want the emotional, poorly thought out response. Obama thinks 30,000 gun deaths is worthy of an emotional national outcry, but 32,000 automobile deaths is just an accident... Trump has to go the other way, MORE guns. It's absolutely ludicrous. And it's because most Americans today are too lazy to get into the details, and they're too lazy to set their emotions aside long enough to be objective.


I really like what you said and totally agree. Just a little vetting of the "facts" goes a long way.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Old Vet said:


> Muslims have a right to immigrate to anywhere. You cant refuse a right. They have immunity to any vetting system. Ask Obama.


 Thats because Obama is going against the LAW which is already on the books.~!
They can not just 'walk in'.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

red1 said:


> I have a lot of Muslim friends through aerospace work here and there. Also Russians, Jews, one of my more interesting acquaintances is Hungarian.
> 
> So don trumph proposes no Muslims into the country..and I take offense to that knowing some of my friends will be expecting family coming in for the holidays.
> 
> Doesn't his idea bother anyone else?


In today's world it doesn't bother me to put a temporary moratorium on visas from Islamic nations. Do you think it would have been smart for us to allow people from Japan, Italy and/or Germany into the US in 1943? Now as then we have no way to know which side the people are on and until we can get a handle on the situation it only makes sense to set limits.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

red1 said:


> I have a lot of Muslim friends through aerospace work here and there. Also Russians, Jews, one of my more interesting acquaintances is Hungarian.
> 
> So don trumph proposes no Muslims into the country..and I take offense to that knowing some of my friends will be expecting family coming in for the holidays.
> 
> Doesn't his idea bother anyone else?


NOPE.
Public Law 414
Islam, by law, is prohibited from US immigration The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in *Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by âforce, violence, or other unconstitutional means.â This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House.Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their lifeâs guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government.* Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any âorganizationâ that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

[FONT=&quot]Donald Trump is an enormous embarrassment to the ideals that made this country great.

It's great that he's running, however. He's doing a fabulous job to ensure that Hillary Clinton will comfortably win the Presidential race. She now trends 12 points ahead of him, and that's *before* his latest xenophobic, bigoted comments. The only thing that would make me happier will be for him to run as an Independent. That would split the GOP and ensure a Democratic victory in 2016. His followers will scamper along like lemmings and throw themselves right off his cliff.

I was a mite concerned about his popularity at one point, but then I learned this: Of 100% of Americans, 25% identify as Republicans. 22% of those identify as Trump supporters. That translates into 6% of the total American population -- which is about the same percentage of people as who believe the moon landing was a hoax. Not worried anymore.

[/FONT]If there is a violent backlash against Muslims in this country (sadly, I fear there will be), there will be blood on Donald Trump's hands. And of course, he says nothing of his own financial dealings in the Middle East. No surprise he's a hypocrite, too. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...ould-hurt-his-own-mideast-business-deals-cost


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> What holiday?


I know this will be a shocker but there are actually other holidays besides Christmas in the Winter! 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_conflict1.htm


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> Wonder if Trump can find a way to ban all politicians from the US...


Can we include Canada as well?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Trump is a blowhard. I am sure he doesn't believe most of what he says, but, he knows how to give a crowd what it wants.


Don't you find it disturbing there is a crowd out there that wants to hear what he is saying?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> It is an extremely worrisome situation. I am increasingly disillusioned with the IQ of the general populous and their ability to make good decisions.


This is what worries me too. I link it to public education!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> So do you believe there should NOT be proper vetting of immigrants?


We actually currently have proper vetting procedures.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

poppy said:


> Nonsense. The Constitutional duty of the federal government is primarily to protect America. If people from any country cannot be properly vetted, they should not be allowed in, period. Government needs to stop spending its time collecting data on people who have lived here for generations and focus on the problem people. It ain't blacks, whites, or Mexicans doing the terror attacks. It is Muslims. Vet and monitor the Muslims that come in. Yea, it's profiling. Don't you wish the Malik woman had been vetted more thoroughly? They're now saying she had been radicalized for a long time. Maybe she influenced him? There is a rat's nest of people who either knew or should have known this attack was going to happen.


People who have lived here for generations keep committing terror attacks. Why is it so important to vet one group and not the other?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Thats because Obama is going against the LAW which is already on the books.~!
> *They can not just 'walk in'*.


Of course they can't.
They are across the ocean
I think you may want to research that bit about "laws" though


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Raeven said:


> [FONT=&quot]Donald Trump is an enormous embarrassment to the ideals that made this country great.


 Did YOU complain when President Carter did THIS?
Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis, and th eUS IS IN a huge crises Right NOW with Isis and all those that follow that type.
Was that as you put it, a embarrassments to the US at that point in time? And like I posted there IS a LAW in the books right now barring THEWM~! So lets not get all up tight about what Trump is saying now. He IS saying What O SHOULD BE DOING right NOW~!!! Instead of disobeying laws that are already written.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Iranian hostages = an understandable sanction against Iran in response to a hostile act being committed against the United States of holding our people hostage. Different thing entirely to banning all Muslims because an American citizen and his wife became radicalized and committed an atrocious act in this country. 

Don't worry. I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> We actually currently have proper vetting procedures.


Just how do you vet someone from a third world country where the record keeping is minimal at best?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> People who have lived here for generations keep committing terror attacks. Why is it so important to vet one group and not the other?


Simple, its called "threat assessment". Seeing as how most of the terrorist have came from one group common sense should tell you that that group needs to have more scrutiny than the others.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Iranian hostages = an understandable sanction against Iran in response to a hostile act being committed against the United States of holding our people hostage. Different thing entirely to banning all Muslims because an American citizen and his wife became radicalized and committed an atrocious act.
> 
> Don't worry. I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference.


The thing is the common link. In the 1950s do you think we should have allowed large numbers of sworn communist from Soviet block nations into the US?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

watcher said:


> The thing is the common link. In the 1950s do you think we should have allowed large numbers of sworn communist from Soviet block nations into the US?


If they were sworn Communists, they wouldn't have wanted to live here. If they were refugees from persecution by sworn Communists, then absolutely. 

Please learn to tell the difference.

I'll give you that Joe McCarthy and Donald Trump are cut from the same cloth, though.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Raeven said:


> If they were sworn Communists, they wouldn't have wanted to live here. If they were refugees from persecution by sworn Communists, then absolutely.
> 
> Please learn to tell the difference.
> 
> I'll give you that Joe McCarthy and Donald Trump are cut from the same cloth, though.


So you have no problem with preventing sworn followers of Islam from entering the US? After all the followers of communism and Islam have the same goal to instill their belief system across the globe and believe that violence is an acceptable means to do so.

Also, can you tell me if the person from Syria or Afghanistan who is a follower of the religion of peace isn't one who will shoot women and children or one who would? Just how do you do this?

If Islam is truly a religion of peace and those doing violence in its name are going against its teachings I suggest those who are having their religion covered in blood and hate clean up their house. They need to come forward loudly and publicly point out and denounce those rouge followers. Until then they are all covered with and stained by the blood of the women and children who are ROUTINELY killed by those who claim to be followers of Islam. 

When I hear about the major Islamic nations sending thousands of troops into areas to hunt down and 'correct' these misguided people and how these nations are taking in tens of thousands of Islamic refugees I might say we could then start relaxing our immigration standards. What I see now is indifference which to me is silent support for the actions of 'the few'.

Only a fool allows a threat into his own home.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Raeven said:


> Iranian hostages = an understandable sanction against Iran in response to a hostile act being committed against the United States of holding our people hostage. Different thing entirely to banning all Muslims because an American citizen and his wife became radicalized and committed an atrocious act in this country.
> 
> Don't worry. I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference.


If Trump did this he would be doing his job under the constitution!! 
A president is to make sure all threats are dealt with so the people are safe.

8 U.S. Code Â§ 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President 
Whenever the President finds* that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens* into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation,* and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate*. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Nonsense. The Constitutional duty of the federal government is primarily to protect America. If people from any country cannot be properly vetted, they should not be allowed in, period. Government needs to stop spending its time collecting data on people who have lived here for generations and focus on the problem people. It ain't blacks, whites, or Mexicans doing the terror attacks. It is Muslims. Vet and monitor the Muslims that come in. Yea, it's profiling. Don't you wish the Malik woman had been vetted more thoroughly? They're now saying she had been radicalized for a long time. Maybe she influenced him? There is a rat's nest of people who either knew or should have known this attack was going to happen.


You mistake properly for perfectly. No man made system will ever be perfect. No government can make you perfectly safe. I don't know that she wasn't properly vetted. I know she wasn't perfectly vetted. It's not foreign Muslims who have walked into churches killing to start a race war. It's not foreigners who shot up movie theaters to appease the voices in their head. Threats come from all directions.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Don't you find it disturbing there is a crowd out there that wants to hear what he is saying?


 Yes, I also found it disturbing that untold millions could be fooled by "Hope and Change". Or, a crowd wants to hear HRC, or, Sanders. They are all dangerous to our country.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I know this will be a shocker but there are actually other holidays besides Christmas in the Winter!
> 
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_conflict1.htm


Which one are they traveling to celebrate?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Did YOU complain when President Carter did THIS?
> Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis, and th eUS IS IN a huge crises Right NOW with Isis and all those that follow that type.
> Was that as you put it, a embarrassments to the US at that point in time? And like I posted there IS a LAW in the books right now barring THEWM~! So lets not get all up tight about what Trump is saying now. He IS saying What O SHOULD BE DOING right NOW~!!! Instead of disobeying laws that are already written.


But he didn't ban all Iranians.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> We actually currently have proper vetting procedures.


Yeah, thats why San Bernadino happened.
Proper vetting procedures. Its taken less than 1 week to figure out she should never have been allowed into this country.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> So you have no problem with preventing sworn followers of Islam from entering the US? After all the followers of communism and Islam have the same goal to instill their belief system across the globe and believe that violence is an acceptable means to do so.
> 
> Also, can you tell me if the person from Syria or Afghanistan who is a follower of the religion of peace isn't one who will shoot women and children or one who would? Just how do you do this?
> 
> ...


It's the same goal evangelical christians have. To spread theirword and their beliefs. It's funny how many decry the treatment Christians get in other countries as unamerican and contrary to our values yet they wish to impose those same restrictions here on a religion they disagree with.

And only a bigger fool sees everything as a threat.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> It's the same goal evangelical christians have. To spread theirword and their beliefs. It's funny how many decry the treatment Christians get in other countries as unamerican and contrary to our values yet they wish to impose those same restrictions here on a religion they disagree with.
> 
> And only a bigger fool sees everything as a threat.


 I don't care if anyone wants to spread their beliefs as long as they do it in a peaceful manner. Terrorism, like any number of booger men, is blown far out of proportion by government. Trump is a blowhard, his followers are as much sheep as the followers of HRC, Sanders, etc.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> I don't care if anyone wants to spread their beliefs as long as they do it in a peaceful manner. Terrorism, like any number of booger men, is blown far out of proportion by government. Trump is a blowhard, his followers are as much sheep as the followers of HRC, Sanders, etc.


The legislative process can be "peaceful". I care about that too. I also know that history proves that no religous take over remains peaceful forever. Eventually someone pays a dear price for believing differently. I'll agree with your assessment of our current political choices.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Did YOU complain when President Carter did THIS?
> Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis, and th eUS IS IN a huge crises Right NOW with Isis and all those that follow that type.
> Was that as you put it, a embarrassments to the US at that point in time? And like I posted there IS a LAW in the books right now barring THEWM~! So lets not get all up tight about what Trump is saying now. He IS saying What O SHOULD BE DOING right NOW~!!! Instead of disobeying laws that are already written.


FDR did it after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

FDR Halted German, Japanese Naturalization After Pearl Harbor


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

Banning or preventing persons from a nation state is a lot different than banning based upon RELIGION. 

What will you cry when Orthodox Christians are banned. Or Buddhists. Or Hindis. Or Sikhs. Or Evangelicals. Or Jews.

Which will be next? 

The world often asks how could the German people stand by and let what happened to the Jews happen. Will there come a day when the world asks how could the Americans, of all people, do what they did?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> It's the same goal evangelical christians have. To spread theirword and their beliefs. It's funny how many decry the treatment Christians get in other countries as unamerican and contrary to our values yet they wish to impose those same restrictions here on a religion they disagree with.
> 
> And only a bigger fool sees everything as a threat.


Maybe not cutting off heads is a good place for the rabid Muslim evangelist to start. 

I missed seeing Christians loping off heads while many Muslim counties arrest Christians for distributing Bibles.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Maybe not cutting off heads is a good place for the rabid Muslim evangelist to start.
> 
> I missed seeing Christians loping off heads while many Muslim counties arrest Christians for distributing Bibles.


At a certain point you just run out of heads to lop off. Ever wonder why the religions indigenous to the Americas when the western world arrived have largely disappeared?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> At a certain point you just run out of heads to lop off. Ever wonder why the religions indigenous to the Americas when the western world arrived have largely disappeared?


Maybe talk about this century, this decade, or how about today?

I have no guilt about past atrocities. Maybe you could get over yours too.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Warning, it's a horrifying read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> The legislative process can be "peaceful". I care about that too. I also know that history proves that no religous take over remains peaceful forever. *Eventually someone pays a dear price for believing differently.* I'll agree with your assessment of our current political choices.


The same can be said of most any political ideology.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Maybe talk about this century, this decade, or how about today?
> 
> I have no guilt about past atrocities. Maybe you could get over yours too.


It's not about guilt. It's about recognizing how we got here and where we're going. It doesn't matter how the religous remove my rights and impose their will. The result is largely the same.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You mistake properly for perfectly. No man made system will ever be perfect. No government can make you perfectly safe. I don't know that she wasn't properly vetted. I know she wasn't perfectly vetted. It's not foreign Muslims who have walked into churches killing to start a race war. It's not foreigners who shot up movie theaters to appease the voices in their head. Threats come from all directions.


The problem continues to be the nagging facts. The vast majority of terrorist acts around the world have been committed by followers of Islam. This means while threats do "come from all directions" when you assess the threats you need to look longer and harder in the direction of the followers of Islam than the followers of Batman or even the Klan.

Bring it closer to home. Say in your area there was a huge uptick in the number of extremely violent crimes and it was shown that the vast majority of these crimes were committed by members of "the militant wing of the Salvation Army". Would you not expect the police to start paying closer attention to anyone wearing a SA uniform? If the majority of SA members did nothing to help the police locate these "militants" would you not assume the SA didn't really think these "militant actions" were all that bad? Would you not be less likely to let someone who says they are collecting for the SA into your house or business?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It's the same goal evangelical christians have. To spread theirword and their beliefs. It's funny how many decry the treatment Christians get in other countries as unamerican and contrary to our values yet they wish to impose those same restrictions here on a religion they disagree with.


Wrong again. You still don't understand Christianity. Its goal is to spread the word but its up to the individual to make the choice to believe or not. As I have pointed out over and over Christians are told if someone doesn't want to believe then the Christian is to walk away. Plus we are told we are to follow the government system we are under.

Because of this Christians are no physical threat to anyone nor any standing government. 

Can you say the same about Islam?




mmoetc said:


> And only a bigger fool sees everything as a threat.


I'm willing to bet there are some families in CA who are now seeing the threat that Islam is posing to people in the US today. Then there are probably a few in Paris who also see a few more threats today than they did six months ago.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tommyice said:


> Banning or preventing persons from a nation state is a lot different than banning based upon RELIGION.
> 
> What will you cry when Orthodox Christians are banned. Or Buddhists. Or Hindis. Or Sikhs. Or Evangelicals. Or Jews.
> 
> ...


The difference is the Jews were not burning people alive nor shooting women and children. 

Look at the treatment of Japanese Americans in the early 40s. From today's POV its was a terrible outrageous thing to do to them. But at the time it was the logical and safe thing to do because of the Japanese culture and belief system added to the fact we did not have the man power nor ability to go through and check each and every individual to determine if they were a threat or not. Remember the Japanese were taught that the Emperor was a GOD. Can you say that not one of those people was loyal enough to the Emperor to have attempted to cause harm to the US? 

How many American lives would you say would be needed to be saved to justify what was done then? If we had not interned them and say 500 Americans were killed by the actions of a member of the 'small percentage' who were loyal to the Emperor would that have an OK price to pay for allowing the rest their freedom? Or maybe that you think 500 is too many but if only 200 died it'd been all right?

Right now we KNOW that a percentage of Muslims are willing to kill innocents in an attempt to spread Islam. Seeing as how there are 1,600,000,000 Muslims in the world a small percentage is a lot of people. Knowing this its kinda foolish to allow any of them into the US for the foreseeable future. The problem the followers of Islam have isn't the US and its immigration policies, its their failure to condemn and do everything possible to control those they claim are not true followers.


----------



## red1 (Jun 19, 2007)

Good Muslims...Bad Muslims...
The contributions the good Muslims have made...engineering, medicines..and on. It would be sad to see the people of this country turn their backs on these folks. 
The holidays in this country are celebrated by all people...whether Christian or not..the bosses give the same days for everyone.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

red1 said:


> Good Muslims...Bad Muslims...
> 
> The holidays in this country are celebrated by all people...whether Christian or not..the bosses give the same days for everyone.


But employers in Muslim countries do not give time off for U.S. or Christian holidays, so the question stands (even though I wan not the one who posed it), what holidays?


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

watcher said:


> The difference is the Jews were not burning people alive nor shooting women and children.


Um....Jews were actually the ones doing the dying during the holocaust. And it was a great many women and children doing the dying. I don't think being led into a gas chamber was any more pleasant than being burnt alive or shot or beheaded. I may be wrong about that though. What say you?



watcher said:


> Look at the treatment of Japanese Americans in the early 40s. From today's POV its was a terrible outrageous thing to do to them. But at the time it was the logical and safe thing to do because of the Japanese culture and belief system added to the fact we did not have the man power nor ability to go through and check each and every individual to determine if they were a threat or not. Remember the Japanese were taught that the Emperor was a GOD*. Can you say that not one of those people was loyal enough to the Emperor to have attempted to cause harm to the US? *


It wasn't right, just or moral back then, they knew it. And it's not right, just or moral now.

Can you say all those interred were loyal enough to cause harm?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

We again fall into the premise of "proper" versus "necessary". The interment of the Japanese was not proper, in a perfect world we could expect those that came to the US to be ones who were seeking a new way. The ones that we had to watch for are the ones that were sent with the intent to do harm at a advantageous point in time. We have now reached the time where we are not allowed the convenience of "proper" behavior towards those that have the intent to harm the citizens of this country. We do not have the infrastructure in place to insure their benign-ness. 

This is the disconnectedness of our present. We are compelled to operate under the "Properness Doctrine" when others do not. I am against collateral damage in all of these policing actions that our government has taken on. I am not so concerned with collateral when our forces take the matters to task and fights the battle in the most decisive way. This REQUIRES a Declaration of War. Not a "War on [enter your chosen behavior here]" But a War on a State Actor. Trump, in as far as he talks about what should have happened in Iraq, he is correct - should our forces have been given the green light, - boom, don't dance around the goal, get it done! [I was and am against the Iraq War but if we are going to send our young men into war then lets get it done]

It is simple, if a person attacks us, determine their nationality and inform that country that there is a penalty to pay. Happens again, punishment rendered, happens again, punishment escalated. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. If that state is receiving aid from us, Aid discontinued.

If someone of a religious sect attacks us, formal notice the first time, extremely harsh punishment to a known icon of their religion the next time. Next time, Escalation.

I do not like war, I hope, in every case that there is a way around it. Sometimes, it has a place in our existence. 

Allowing persons of the Muslim slant into our country without a proper and successful vetting process, when the elevated level of damage that can now be directed at any of our population centers is ludicrous. 

Profiling, at this point, is required.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

watcher said:


> So you have no problem with preventing sworn followers of Islam from entering the US? After all the followers of communism and Islam have the same goal to instill their belief system across the globe and believe that violence is an acceptable means to do so.
> 
> Also, can you tell me if the person from Syria or Afghanistan who is a follower of the religion of peace isn't one who will shoot women and children or one who would? Just how do you do this?
> 
> ...


 You just keep stating your opinions and then you stamp your little foot and get angry when others don&#8217;t agree they are fact. You demand that we accept your sole definition of a &#8220;terrorist&#8221; &#8211; which appears to be *any* Muslim. I don&#8217;t see it that way, and no matter how many times you say, &#8220;Wrong again!&#8221; I won&#8217;t find your arguments persuasive. They are sheer demagoguery and bigoted rantings, nothing more.

What is terrorism? Some in the Middle East might argue &#8211; rather persuasively, even &#8211; that the indiscriminate dropping of bombs on their civilian populations amounts to terrorism. Surely it must be terrifying to any community undergoing such an assault. They might also argue that the unspeakable, torturous acts carried out in our name at Abu Ghraib amounted to terrorism. I could not argue the point.

Our vetting processes must not be too bad. There are 3 million Muslims living in America. They&#8217;re sure lousy at committing terrorist acts if they slipped through with terrorism as their goal.

I think if we&#8217;re going to indulge our baser urges to employ profiling as a method of keeping us &#8220;safe,&#8221; then let&#8217;s make sure to go after the segment of the population that&#8217;s *actually* attacking us, not the hordes of imaginary radicalized refugee Muslim terrorists who are not. Young white males are the ones who disproportionately attack and kill many people in incident after incident, not Muslims. Again, you are aware there are 3 million Muslims living in the US at present, right? And a billion Muslims in the world? Few of them are terrorists. Young white males, however&#8230;

I know. Let&#8217;s implant GPS computer chips in their arms so we know where they are at all times, tattoo them all, maybe herd them into camps so we can keep an eye on them and&#8230; oh. Wait.

You're willing to sacrifice the ideals and values that once made this country great. I'm not.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> Warning, it's a horrifying read.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html


*Tiempo*, that is truly shocking. I don't even know what to say. I am glad you shared it. The world at large needs to know about these atrocities.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

7 Year old article with NO Follow up, ya now that is news I guess.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> *7 Year old* article with NO Follow up, ya now that is news I guess.


It's dated *2010* and updated in 2011

Do you know what year it is now?



> NO Follow up


The kids are all still dead


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tommyice said:


> Um....Jews were actually the ones doing the dying during the holocaust. And it was a great many women and children doing the dying. I don't think being led into a gas chamber was any more pleasant than being burnt alive or shot or beheaded. I may be wrong about that though. What say you?


Which is why the comparison is apples and bananas. There's a huge difference in letting a group who is being killed and letting the killers in. Now if you were suggesting that in the 40s we had allowed members of the Nazi party into the US because not all Nazis were running the death camps you analogy would have been closer.




Tommyice said:


> It wasn't right, just or moral back then, they knew it. And it's not right, just or moral now.


As viewed with 20/20 hindsight you can say that. You can make an argument that it wasn't just or moral but was burning thousands of German civilians the death in Dresden just or moral? How about the tens of thousands of Japanese civilians who were burned to death in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and other Japanese cities? If burning innocent civilians is moral and just to protect the US then I don't see how you can consider the internment as being immoral and unjust.

As for being the right thing to do. We will never be 100% sure because we will never know how many, if any, of the people we interned would have acted against US interest. But given the circumstances I would say it was the right action to take.




Tommyice said:


> Can you say all those interred were loyal enough to cause harm?


As today where not all Muslims are terrorist but almost all terrorist have been Muslims; we can honestly say that not all the people interned were a threat but we can not say if NONE of them would have posed a threat therefore it makes sense to limit their ability to harm Americans.

Our enemies today, the Muslim terrorist, and our enemies then, the Japanese, both look at their actions as a fight for their god, both are willing to die if their death means the death of their enemies (google Banzai attacks and Kamikaze). When fighting an enemy like that you have to look at all members of the group as a threat.

Now answer my question. If you were in charge in 1941 how many American lives would you have been willing to sacrifice before you would say we should have interned the Japanese Americans?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Don't you find it disturbing there is a crowd out there that wants to hear what he is saying?



Weeelll, since you put it that way, why are there any crowds that want to hear what any of the candidates are saying? Most are talking out of both sides anyway and we all know most of it is half truths. 


I would love for just once a candidate says "I would really like to get this done as POTUS but I know it wont happen anyway."


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I would love for just once a candidate says "I would really like to get this done as POTUS but I know it wont happen anyway."


Funny; I've heard President Obama say exactly this recently on a number of occasions with respect to gun control.

But we digress.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> Funny; I've heard President Obama say exactly this recently on a number of occasions with respect to gun control.
> 
> But we digress.


Maybe so but not as a candidate. 

Not defending Trump or anyone here but some wonder about why his numbers are so high. Its because he speaks his mind. It doesn't mean all of them agree with him it just means they like him for being honest. More and more people are getting tired of the same ole same ole. The others need to take heed of they want to win. 

Its going to get worse in the future for politicos if they don't.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Maybe so but not as a candidate.
> 
> Not defending Trump or anyone here but some wonder about why his numbers are so high. Its because he speaks his mind. It doesn't mean all of them agree with him it just means they like him for being honest. More and more people are getting tired of the same ole same ole. The others need to take heed of they want to win.
> 
> Its going to get worse in the future for politicos if they don't.


So in other words, just cave in to pandering. Say anything it takes to get elected -- irrespective of whether or not it is responsible, doable... or morally right. Just give the Mob what they want to hear.

By the way, his numbers aren't that high. There just isn't much else to talk about during the pre-primary season. And he do love to grab those headlines. Doesn't much care what damage he does to do it, either.

(And I know you're not defending Trump.)


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Should any such policy be put into effect, I can't imagine how many thousands of citizens would essentially step across a border, even into Canada or Mexico, then turn around to the re-entry point and simply state to immigration officials "It's none of your damned business!" when asked if they were Muslim. Instant Supreme Court case, instant suspension of any such law by several of the justices, very rapid decision overturning the law or regulation by the entire court, though I have such a dim view of Thomas and Scalia I can't be sure they'd go with the others, but suspect they would.

More to the point is *why* Trump is loudly proposing something so ridiculous. *I* like to see how many posters are essentially "Know Nothings" agreeing with this idiocy ("Know Nothings" were a very real splinter party in the 1880s and given that label since their leaders told members to tell inquiring reporters "I don't know anything" when asked about their group's policies opposing immigration in that period by Irish and Italians and Jews, not to indicate stupidity. Not directly, anyway.) I think I most like the idea that he's never really wanted to be a true candidate, is simply inflating his personal brand like his reality show does, hoping for that many more lucrative deals of one sort or another a bit in the future, but NOW is getting a bit scared of the real responsibility of being a public official and is going for sabotaging himself with ever more loud-mouthed and outrageous blather. Sort of like if Reagan had announced that since Bonzo had gotten older and become off-the-wall violent, he'd appoint him his Secretary of State, that we needed an official that would literally chew Gorbachev's genitals off after starting with his face. Of course, comparing Trump to Reagan is a bit scary, since Reagan *was* elected.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> So in other words, just cave in to pandering. Say anything it takes to get elected -- irrespective of whether or not it is responsible, doable... or morally right. Just give the Mob what they want to hear.
> 
> By the way, his numbers aren't that high. There just isn't much else to talk about during the pre-primary season. And he do love to grab those headlines. Doesn't much care what damage he does to do it, either.
> 
> (And I know you're not defending Trump.)


No, from what I have been hearing on the street is that it is refreshing that he speaks his mind and the hope is that others will follow suit. Sooner rather than later.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

DryHeat said:


> Should any such policy be put into effect, I can't imagine how many thousands of citizens would essentially step across a border, even into Canada or Mexico, then turn around to the re-entry point and simply state to immigration officials "It's none of your damned business!" when asked if they were Muslim. Instant Supreme Court case, instant suspension of any such law by several of the justices, very rapid decision overturning the law or regulation by the entire court, though I have such a dim view of Thomas and Scalia I can't be sure they'd go with the others, but suspect they would.
> 
> More to the point is *why* Trump is loudly proposing something so ridiculous. *I* like to see how many posters are essentially "Know Nothings" agreeing with this idiocy ("Know Nothings" were a very real splinter party in the 1880s and given that label since their leaders told members to tell inquiring reporters "I don't know anything" when asked about their group's policies opposing immigration in that period by Irish and Italians and Jews, not to indicate stupidity. Not directly, anyway.) I think I most like the idea that he's never really wanted to be a true candidate, is simply inflating his personal brand like his reality show does, hoping for that many more lucrative deals of one sort or another a bit in the future, but NOW is getting a bit scared of the real responsibility of being a public official and is going for sabotaging himself with ever more loud-mouthed and outrageous blather. Sort of like if Reagan had announced that since Bonzo had gotten older and become off-the-wall violent, he'd appoint him his Secretary of State, that we needed an official that would literally chew Gorbachev's genitals off after starting with his face. Of course, comparing Trump to Reagan is a bit scary, since Reagan *was* elected.



Yeah, and he would never be able to pass a law like that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

If it is wrong in hindsight it was equally wrong when it happened. Here's George Takei's Ted talk on his families experience. http://www.ted.com/talks/george_tak..._that_once_betrayed_me/transcript?language=en. It doesn't include his story of his parents refusal to sign a loyalty oath that included language that would have them renounce their pledged loyalty to the emperor. Why didn't they sign it and leave the camps early? Because they had never made any such pledge to the emperor and they felt to renounce what they'd never done would be dishonest and dishonorable. These are the kinds of people we imprisoned out of fear and prejudice.

If you're willing to have your government take the rights of anyone for the vague notion that one life might be saved you don't really know the meaning of inalienable rights. The same argument could be used to take any right from you at any time. I'd like to think we're still a better country than that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> Yeah, and he would never be able to pass a law like that.


Why not? It sure has been many times in the past and there are plenty of LAWS already in place to keep those that don't want to adhere to the constitution OUT.
All he has to do is ENFORCE what is already in place~!


----------



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

I am a Cruz supporter. 

That said, it is a sight to see the media, political elite on both sides of the aisle and the "sophisticated" folks on this site and others go into total 
melt down!


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> No, from what I have been hearing on the street is that it is refreshing that he speaks his mind and the hope is that others will follow suit. Sooner rather than later.


I am genuinely smiling when I say to you that the word on your streets is probably vastly different than the word on mine.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> I am genuinely smiling when I say to you that the word on your streets is probably vastly different than the word on mine.


Not necessarily. I do a lot of work around Austin and even here there are many Democrats that don't like Hillary and have Bernie stickers on their cars. No one has Trump on there yet but there is much talk about him. Not all of it bad.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

watcher said:


> Which is why the comparison is apples and bananas. There's a huge difference in letting a group who is being killed and letting the killers in. Now if you were suggesting that in the 40s we had allowed members of the Nazi party into the US because not all Nazis were running the death camps you analogy would have been closer.


Bund Party. Google it. They were a German nationalist party here in the US before and during WWII. They were Nazi supporters. 



watcher said:


> As viewed with 20/20 hindsight you can say that. You can make an argument that it wasn't just or moral but was burning thousands of German civilians the death in Dresden just or moral? How about the tens of thousands of Japanese civilians who were burned to death in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and other Japanese cities? If burning innocent civilians is moral and just to protect the US then I don't see how you can consider the internment as being immoral and unjust.
> 
> As for being the right thing to do. We will never be 100% sure because we will never know how many, if any, of the people we interned would have acted against US interest. But given the circumstances I would say it was the right action to take.
> 
> ...


Please see MMOECT's post No. 88 in this thread. He (sorry if you're a she) said it so much more politely than I would.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Not necessarily. I do a lot of work around Austin and even here there are many Democrats that don't like Hillary and have Bernie stickers on their cars. No one has Trump on there yet but there is much talk about him. Not all of it bad.


I never said I was in favor of Hillary. I merely said she will win.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...it is not just the refugees that we need to worry about....

http://www.walb.com/story/30698364/air-force-missing-afghan-trainees-were-about-to-graduate


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Raeven said:


> You just keep stating your opinions and then you stamp your little foot and get angry when others donât agree they are fact. You demand that we accept your sole definition of a âterroristâ â which appears to be *any* Muslim. I donât see it that way, and no matter how many times you say, âWrong again!â I wonât find your arguments persuasive.


My definition of terrorist is simple, its one who uses internationally recognized illegal violence or the threat of that violence to effect a political change. And the facts stand before you all you must do is take the time to honestly look at them. Which one group has committed the largest number of terror attack in the world in the last 20 years? Buddhist? Druids? 




Raeven said:


> They are sheer demagoguery and bigoted rantings, nothing more.


I like that. Anyone who knows me would have a good laugh at you trying to imply that I'm a bigot. Seeing as how I've probably been fighting racism for longer than you have been alive.




Raeven said:


> What is terrorism? Some in the Middle East might argue â rather persuasively, even â that the indiscriminate dropping of bombs on their civilian populations amounts to terrorism. Surely it must be terrifying to any community undergoing such an assault. They might also argue that the unspeakable, torturous acts carried out in our name at Abu Ghraib amounted to terrorism. I could not argue the point.


I clearly point out what it is. 




Raeven said:


> Our vetting processes must not be too bad. There are 3 million Muslims living in America. Theyâre sure lousy at committing terrorist acts if they slipped through with terrorism as their goal.


I don't have the numbers before me, seeing as how you do could you tell me how many of that 3 million are immigrants?




Raeven said:


> I think if weâre going to indulge our baser urges to employ profiling as a method of keeping us âsafe,â then letâs make sure to go after the segment of the population thatâs *actually* attacking us, not the hordes of imaginary radicalized refugee Muslim terrorists who are not. Young white males are the ones who disproportionately attack and kill many people in incident after incident, not Muslims. Again, you are aware there are 3 million Muslims living in the US at present, right? And a billion Muslims in the world? Few of them are terrorists. Young white males, howeverâ¦


Do you have a magic wand which you can use to show if an immigrant will or will not commit a terrorist act? If so if you use it for each immigrant coming in I have no problem with letting anyone legally enter from any nation. If not I think we should look at who is posing a danger to Americans and decide logically if we are going to take the chance of letting people from there in. Do you agree? 




Raeven said:


> You're willing to sacrifice the ideals and values that once made this country great. I'm not.


You might want to read a little history. The US has a history of limiting immigration. AAMOF, it has a very recent history of not only limiting entry of a specific people but of rounding them up and expelling them. How recent? I suggest you read about the Carter administration.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DryHeat said:


> Should any such policy be put into effect, I can't imagine how many thousands of citizens would essentially step across a border, even into Canada or Mexico, then turn around to the re-entry point and simply state to immigration officials "It's none of your damned business!" when asked if they were Muslim. Instant Supreme Court case, instant suspension of any such law by several of the justices, very rapid decision overturning the law or regulation by the entire court, though I have such a dim view of Thomas and Scalia I can't be sure they'd go with the others, but suspect they would.


And from what I've been reading they would lose. The USC gives the power to set the rules for immigration to the congress and the congress has already passed a law allowing the President to limit entry to, basically, anyone or any group he thinks could be a threat. Add to that the fact as a foreign citizen you have no constitutional right to enter the US you would not even have standing in the court to file such a suit. 




DryHeat said:


> More to the point is *why* Trump is loudly proposing something so ridiculous.


Two reasons. One it gives him more free press coverage. Two, he is saying what a lot of people are thinking but are too afraid to say because of political correctness. After years of seeing Muslim terrorist killing innocent men, women and children people are now thinking that we should actually start taking a much closer look at anyone who claims to be a follower of Islam. But as Trump has shown anyone who actually says it out loud will be vilified.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tommyice said:


> Bund Party. Google it. They were a German nationalist party here in the US before and during WWII. They were Nazi supporters.


Closer but still an apples and oranges analogy with what we are talking about. The Bund party was an American party with members made up of American citizens and after WWII started it went away. Also AFAIK no member of the Bund party ever killed innocent American women and children to move his cause forward.

We are talking about a specific group which has members who have a goal to overthrow the current US government, as well as governments around the world, and has members who have killed innocent men, women and children to forward their stated goal. To make a proper 1940s analogy you would have to be talking about is letting GERMAN nationals who are ACTIVE members of the NAZI party into the US after Germany had declared war on the US. 




Tommyice said:


> Please see MMOECT's post No. 88 in this thread. He (sorry if you're a she) said it so much more politely than I would.


Simple question for you. Do you think it was moral, just and right for the US to firebomb Japanese cities when it knew doing so would kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children who's only "crime" was to be Japanese?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Wow... They all turned around on their migrants stance because the people were behind what Trump outlined. Now it seems that Trump is correct again... Go Figure.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbp44DAebJY[/ame]


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Closer but still an apples and oranges analogy with what we are talking about. The Bund party was an American party with members made up of American citizens and after WWII started it went away. Also AFAIK no member of the Bund party ever killed innocent American women and children to move his cause forward.
> 
> We are talking about a specific group which has members who have a goal to overthrow the current US government, as well as governments around the world, and has members who have killed innocent men, women and children to forward their stated goal. To make a proper 1940s analogy you would have to be talking about is letting GERMAN nationals who are ACTIVE members of the NAZI party into the US after Germany had declared war on the US.
> 
> ...


I'll tackle your last question. At the time it was. They were standard practices of war given the technology and tactics of the day. Using the same tactics today given modern technology and precision would be immoral. 

But the treatment of American citizens of Japanese decent during World War II was immoral, unjust and not right. They were American citizens. They were due all the rights of every American citizen. They had committed no crime other than to be born of Japanese decent. They were easy to single out because they looked different. Defending the action of locking these people away and depriving them of all they had worked so hard to achieve can never be justified. Especially not by the lamest of excuses- it might have saved a life and made us safer. What rights are you willing to surrender because the government might make you safer? Or is it just others who have to sacrifice to make you feel a bit more secure?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Raeven said:


> I never said I was in favor of Hillary. I merely said she will win.


That would be a shame, she has more baggage than the lost luggage room at LAX. 

Such a large country and we can't come up with any better candidates for president, kinda embarrassing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I'll tackle your last question. At the time it was. They were standard practices of war given the technology and tactics of the day. Using the same *tactics today* given modern technology and precision would be *immoral*.
> 
> But the treatment of American citizens of Japanese decent during World War II was immoral, unjust and not right. They were American citizens. They were due all the rights of every American citizen. They had committed no crime other than to be born of Japanese decent. They were easy to single out because they looked different. Defending the action of locking these people away and depriving them of all they had worked so hard to achieve can never be justified. Especially not by the lamest of excuses- it might have saved a life and made us safer. What rights are you willing to surrender because the government might make you safer? Or is it just others who have to sacrifice to make you feel a bit more secure?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


>


Which has what to do with what I said?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

arabian knight said:


> Why not? It sure has been many times in the past and there are plenty of LAWS already in place to keep those that don't want to adhere to the constitution OUT.
> All he has to do is ENFORCE what is already in place~!


Actually, you are correct. The more i study this the more I see that he could do this. One quick executive order and its done.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Actually, you are correct. The more i study this the more I see that he could do this. One quick executive order and its done.


The devil is always in the details. Along with what could be done not always being what should be done. I've read legal scholars argue convincingly on both sides but many of the arguments presuppose what such action must look like to support their conclusions. Like many here who like to construct hypotheticals to support their arguments if you remove even one element the whole construct falls apart. I won't even get in to the feelings many here have about executive orders.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'll tackle your last question. At the time it was. They were standard practices of war given the technology and tactics of the day. Using the same tactics today given modern technology and precision would be immoral.


Just a little research will show you that they were not "standard practices". The US lost thousands of airmen which we did not have to over Europe because it refused to use the British night time area bombing technique. We also refused to use the British strategy of bombing of civilian housing areas. We chose instead to do day time 'precision' (precision being a relative term) bombing of only targets with military value in order to keep civilian deaths as low as possible. It was only in Japan where we routinely and deliberately bombed cities in such a way to inflict the maximum civilian casualties. 

Knowing that do you still think the killing of tens of thousands of Japanese women and children was justified, right and moral?



mmoetc said:


> But the treatment of American citizens of Japanese decent during World War II was immoral, unjust and not right. They were American citizens. They were due all the rights of every American citizen. They had committed no crime other than to be born of Japanese decent. They were easy to single out because they looked different. Defending the action of locking these people away and depriving them of all they had worked so hard to achieve can never be justified. Especially not by the lamest of excuses- it might have saved a life and made us safer. What rights are you willing to surrender because the government might make you safer? Or is it just others who have to sacrifice to make you feel a bit more secure?


You do know that many rights are "suspended" during war don't you? Two of the first to go are freedom of speech and press. Your right to freely travel is another. And one power given to the government in these times are to detain anyone who it sees as a threat to national security and a different set of rules apply to them. 

In the early years of the war all the Japanese and Japanese-Americas on the west coast were seen as a threat to national security. With the lens of hind sight we can see this was probably an overreaction but at the time there was no way of telling who was and who wasn't more loyal to the Emperor than the the United States.

And you have one very major problem with your argument with the plan to limit the immigration of Muslims. I didn't realize this until I started checking into it. The USSC has ruled, in effect, that it has no jurisdiction over immigration rules. It has ruled the political branches have âplenary powerâ (I had to look that up) to set the rules as they see fit. Therefore for the government can set any standards or limits it wishes on those it allows in. Seeing as how congress has, by law, given the President carte blanche to decide who he wants to allow in then Trump could legally do just what he suggested and forbid non-citizen Muslims from entering the US. Or if he wanted to he could only allow right handed, straight, blonde haired, blue eyed women between the ages of 18 and 25 and height of between 5'6" and 5'10" and with a BMI of between 19 and 21.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The devil is always in the details. Along with what could be done not always being what should be done. I've read legal scholars argue convincingly on both sides but many of the arguments presuppose what such action must look like to support their conclusions. Like many here who like to construct hypotheticals to support their arguments if you remove even one element the whole construct falls apart. I won't even get in to the feelings many here have about executive orders.


This is the article which started me digging into the legal powers and abilities of the Legislative and Executive branches have when it comes to immigration. If you read it and do some research you discover that the government can do dang well whatever it wishes when it comes to keeping non-citizens out of the US.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...display_an_ignorance_of_their_wwn_129020.html


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Raeven said:


> I never said I was in favor of Hillary. I merely said she will win.


 Isn't it strange that when the voting machines default on election day that the vote always goes for the democrat candidate?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Which one are they traveling to celebrate?


Well if you bothered to read the link you would have seen it. But here let me copy and paste it for you:

*



In 2015, Sunni Muslims observe the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad on the 12th day of the Islamic month of Rabi' al-awwal Milad un Nabi in 570 CE. Shi'a Muslims observe it on the 17th of that month. This translates to  DEC-24 or JAN-04 according to TimeAndDate.com.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> Warning, it's a horrifying read.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html


That is horrific.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's dated *2010* and updated in 2011
> 
> Do you know what year it is now?
> 
> ...


Bravo!

2014:

http://mgafrica.com/article/2014-08...a-traditional-belief-it-is-a-modern-invention

*Child 'witches' and killings in Africa: Why the little ones are safer in Muslim than Christian societies*



IT can sometimes be hard to be a child in Africa. As if staying alive to see your fifth birthday isnât difficult enough, in some places in Africa, middle childhood (age 4-10) is especially fraught because it is the time when you are most likely to be accused of being a witch.
Accusations of children being witches are especially common in central and west Africa, particularly parts of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Angola, Central African Republic (CAR), Cameroon and Nigeria. Children are blamed for untimely deaths in the family, broken homes, problems at work, poverty, pain and sickness.
In Congo, UN-Habitat reports that religious television channels even run weekly shows where âchild witchesâ are identified during public mass meetings.
*Children âservants of Satanâ*
âChild witchesâ are taken for âdeliveranceâ at local churches, but this report by Save The Children says most of the churches operate on a profit-making basis and nearly all of those practising exorcism will put on a real performance for the purposes of financial gain.
In the UK, a Nigerian âwitch-hunterâ who claims any child who cries is a âservant of Satanâ could be banned from the country. There have been calls to Home Secretary Theresa May to label the woman a risk to youngsters, and kick her out.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


>



I could counter that with pictures of African Christians burning people to death for witchcraft. Is that the road you want to go down?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> This is the article which started me digging into the legal powers and abilities of the Legislative and Executive branches have when it comes to immigration. If you read it and do some research you discover that the government can do dang well whatever it wishes when it comes to keeping non-citizens out of the US.
> 
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...display_an_ignorance_of_their_wwn_129020.html


And just a little more research will tell you all the reasons for the United State's strategy of bombing during WWII. There were political concerns centering around the German-American population but morality was low on the list, if it existed at all, for not doing it. Not duplicating the British effort, believing that destroying the industrial base was more important than demoralizing civilians, technological limitations, the fact that our industrial capacity and training of crews far outpaced our losses( yeah, a bit immoral by our leadership but I've never seen much concern for the soldier if the objective can be accomplished) and many other things played into our bombing policy. I'm pretty familiar with WWII history. I heard a lot of it from those who fought it.

I'm also aware that rights can be limited by wartime considerations. But those rights should be limited for all citizens, not just a select few who look different. The only acts of sabotage I could find record of were committed by those of German background. But I don't remember large scale stripping of rights of German Americans, taking of their property and locking them away. You can try to justify this act any way you wish. But the rationale that "it might save a life" is weak rationale indeed for taking away the rights of one group of citizens en mass. If you can target someone because of fear the same fear can be used to take your rights. Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I could counter that with pictures of African Christians burning people to death for witchcraft. Is that the road you want to go down?


Sure.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

So those us us against fetus slaughter and other abhorrent positions you hold are mentally deranged?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Well if you bothered to read the link you would have seen it. But here let me copy and paste it for you:


The OP did not cite an article.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> So those us us against fetus slaughter and other abhorrent positions you hold are mentally deranged?


Not all. But Mr. Dear seems to have shared your beliefs. Why shouldn't we fear what you might do based on his actions? If it saves just one life all who profess pro life beliefs should be closely monitored by the government. Any church that speaks against abortion should be monitored by government agents to make sure no one with violent tendencies is present. Maybe your gun rights should be limited. After all, had Dear not gotten a gun the people at the clinic might still be alive. Isn't that the standard. Rights can be lost because of what might happen?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Not all. But Mr. Dear seems to have shared your beliefs. Why shouldn't we fear what you might do based on his actions? If it saves just one life all who profess pro life beliefs should be closely monitored by the government. Any church that speaks against abortion should be monitored by government agents to make sure no one with violent tendencies is present. Maybe your gun rights should be limited. After all, had Dear not gotten a gun the people at the clinic might still be alive. Isn't that the standard. Rights can be lost because of what might happen?


Again, if a person believes that slaughtering fetuses is wrong is automatically a danger to those in favor of the process?

Again, wow! You too have problems with reality.

So now the test to own a gun is that you believe in slaughtering a fetus??


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Again, if a person believes that slaughtering fetuses is wrong is automatically a danger to those in favor of the process?
> 
> Again, wow! You too have problems with reality.
> 
> So now the test to own a gun is that you believe in slaughtering a fetus??


I didn't say he was, just that he might be based on the evidence that Mr. Dear was a danger. Isn't that the standard. We must fear all who follow a particular belief system because some have proven themselves a danger? I'm just trying to understand the logic of the other side. Personally, I don't agree that you or anyone who believes as Mr Dear should have their rights infringed. But if it makes us safer???????


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> In today's world it doesn't bother me to put a temporary moratorium on visas from Islamic nations. Do you think it would have been smart for us to allow people from Japan, Italy and/or Germany into the US in 1943? Now as then we have no way to know which side the people are on and until we can get a handle on the situation it only makes sense to set limits.


Not only that but just think about back then, & compare it to now: how many civilians then were 'lone wolves'? How many came here & committed or tried terrorist acts??
We've seen the results or unfettered Muslim immigration & we ain't doin' it right. So stop til we can get it right.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> So you have no problem with preventing sworn followers of Islam from entering the US? After all the followers of communism and Islam have the same goal to instill their belief system across the globe and believe that violence is an acceptable means to do so.
> 
> Also, can you tell me if the person from Syria or Afghanistan who is a follower of the religion of peace isn't one who will shoot women and children or one who would? Just how do you do this?
> 
> ...


Post of the year award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Iranian hostages = an understandable sanction against Iran in response to a hostile act being committed against the United States of holding our people hostage. Different thing entirely to banning all Muslims because an American citizen and his wife became radicalized and committed an atrocious act in this country.
> 
> Don't worry. I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference.


Please tell us how you know the difference? Do terrorists to be tell us they are? Might they lie during the vetting process? Where does their documentation come from? How 'bout giving phony addresses, think that only happened once & the ugly murderer at San Bernadino got in?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tommyice said:


> Banning or preventing persons from a nation state is a lot different than banning based upon RELIGION.
> 
> What will you cry when Orthodox Christians are banned. Or Buddhists. Or Hindis. Or Sikhs. Or Evangelicals. Or Jews.
> 
> ...


When those groups murder as many as do Islamists, then yes, they should be scrutinized & not let in.
It's waaaay past time we recognize Islam for what it is: a theocratic political ideology, heck bent on destroying western civilization & ruling the world under their caliphate.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

watcher said:


> Wrong again. You still don't understand Christianity. Its goal is to spread the word but its up to the individual to make the choice to believe or not. As I have pointed out over and over Christians are told if someone doesn't want to believe then the Christian is to walk away. Plus we are told we are to follow the government system we are under.
> 
> Because of this Christians are no physical threat to anyone nor any standing government.
> 
> ...


Post of the tear award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

scooter said:


> Isn't it strange that when the voting machines default on election day that the vote always goes for the democrat candidate?


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

You know that Trump, Clinton, Obama, and all of the other idiots either already in D.C., or, wanting a job there love to see us turn on each other and fear each other. That is why they overblow things like terrorism and AGW. (I know, friends on the Right, terrorism is going to kill us all if we don't get a handle on it.) (I know, friends on the Left, AGW is going to kill us all if we don't get a handle on it.)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I didn't say he was, just that he might be based on the evidence that Mr. Dear was a danger. Isn't that the standard. We must fear all who follow a particular belief system because some have proven themselves a danger? I'm just trying to understand the logic of the other side. Personally, I don't agree that you or anyone who believes as Mr Dear should have their rights infringed. *But if it makes us safer??*?????


Seems as you imply and deny....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> You know that Trump, Clinton, Obama, and all of the other idiots either already in D.C., or, wanting a job there love to see us turn on each other and fear each other. That is why they overblow things like terrorism and AGW. (I know, friends on the Right, terrorism is going to kill us all if we don't get a handle on it.) (I know, friends on the Left, AGW is going to kill us all if we don't get a handle on it.)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Seems as you imply and deny....


Making us safer is the standard pointed our to me by others as the rationale to have rights taken away. I don't agree. The question marks indicate a desire to know if others do.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I didn't say he was, just that he might be based on the evidence that Mr. Dear was a danger. Isn't that the standard. We must fear all who follow a particular belief system because some have proven themselves a danger? I'm just trying to understand the logic of the other side. Personally, I don't agree that you or anyone who believes as Mr Dear should have their rights infringed. But if it makes us safer???????


Well then, if we follow this line of thought, maybe we should all be given "secure" areas to work and live in with round the clock guards, our access to sharp and pointy items should be limited, in case we are having a bad day. All exposure to others should be managed to insure that no harm is committed, all conversation should be provided to the conversation manager before conversation is attempted. Live well - say no harm...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Well then, if we follow this line of thought, maybe we should all be given "secure" areas to work and live in with round the clock guards, our access to sharp and pointy items should be limited, in case we are having a bad day. All exposure to others should be managed to insure that no harm is committed, all conversation should be provided to the conversation manager before conversation is attempted. Live well - say no harm...


You're gettin' it. Give up your rights, or more accurately take the rights of others to feel safer, and what's to stop someone from taking yours?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I could counter that with pictures of African Christians burning people to death for witchcraft. Is that the road you want to go down?


The only problem is you would run out of pictures LONG before he would.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Nope it wasn't a cheap shot at all. If you look at the profile of some of the recent shooters they have a lot in common with people here. I agree with you that the vast majority of people that yammer away on forums on the internet will never take their hate to the next level and attack anyone. But if you want to profile all Muslims because a tiny percentage may do something awful then you need to profile the pro-lifers and the conspiracy theorists and the anti-government people and the racists. Because a tiny percentage of each of those groups have also gone nuts and done awful things. It's just a matter of fair is fair.


Because it makes sense. Even if we accept your "tiny percentage" as being true a "tiny percentage" of a really, really, really large number. Seeing as how there is estimated to be 1,600,000,000 Muslims in the world 1/10 of 1% is 1,600,000 people. To put that into a little perspective that's more then the population of Philadelphia and more than the population of 10 US states.

If the number is 1%, still a "tiny percentage" to most people, that number goes up to 16,000,000. Which is more than all but the four largest states in the union and would make them the 65th largest nation in the world.

And just for fun if we move it to 10%, maybe not tiny but still not a huge percentage, they would be the 8th largest nation in the world.

So yeah I'd say keeping an eye on Muslims makes some sense.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Because it makes sense. Even if we accept your "tiny percentage" as being true a "tiny percentage" of a really, really, really large number. Seeing as how there is estimated to be 1,600,000,000 Muslims in the world 1/10 of 1% is 1,600,000 people. To put that into a little perspective that's more then the population of Philadelphia and more than the population of 10 US states.
> 
> If the number is 1%, still a "tiny percentage" to most people, that number goes up to 16,000,000. Which is more than all but the four largest states in the union and would make them the 65th largest nation in the world.
> 
> ...


Well when you put it like that. But change those numbers to greenhouse gas emissions and suddenly it doesn't make sense to anyone anymore. Sorry for the tangent. I've become obtuse. Haha.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> There are posters that have the exactly the same opinion as Dear on many issues. Let's see... fundamentalist christian, anti abortion extremist, willing to kill to protect what he/she feels is right. Living off grid/separatists, and anti government. Yup, that fits posters right here on HT.
> 
> A few may be just a half bubble off doing the same thing as Dear, who knows?
> 
> *Is there a basis of "those who mock the bible & jesus christ are evil & out to kill christians"? If so, by all means point it out*.


 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ans-for-killing-in-horrific-act-of-cowardice/


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Something else of importance, 25 minutes but worth it - also posted in Current Events as it's own thread.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRe-Q6xrUt8[/ame]


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> I've become obtuse. Haha.


That is just being wise, so many factors and unknowns.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> * Lisa Haven News *
> 
> * Christian, End Time, and Conspiracy News! *
> 
> ...


Did you listen or can it not possibly have information that you might be able to accept? I think that during the entire 25 minutes that she mentions Christians maybe 5 to 7 times. The rest of her observations are current events and are quite salient...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shine said:


> Did you listen or can it not possibly have information that you might be able to accept? I think that during the entire 25 minutes that she mentions Christians maybe 5 to 7 times. The rest of her observations are current events and are quite salient...


I listened to a couple of minutes and she wasn't really saying anything so I googled her.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

OK, six things to expect in the near future. 1. Turn 1st and 2nd world countries into third world countries. The focused intention of the immigrants, forced immigrants in this case is to draw down the economies of 1st and 2nd world countries to that of a third world country. This also overwhelms the basic infrastructures of the countries where the immigrants are fleeing to. I have seen this as being happening all the way around. Has anyone been to Denver lately? 2. #1. will hasten the collapse of the global economy. 3. #s 1 & 2 will hasten the side effect which is depopulation of those countries via disease, crime and the lack of foodstuffs. 4. Policing under Martial Law conditions patterned so as to get people to believe that the extra crime explosion caused by the influx of "refugees" requires the surrender of freedoms fairly much in line with those surrendered under martial law, but without the official declaration. 5. Escalated Gun Confiscation wherein she cites those that are more vocal regarding the right to own a gun or to have certain rights being labeled as those that would destroy civilization and due to the levels of crime, demonized where those who are charged with our protection should be the only ones who should possess guns. and 6. The attack on anyone that would say something about a leader, or a government or NWO or Agenda 21. The length of the video is because she gives running proof and examples of her summations of all of these citations and draws it all together in a calm, clear and concise presentation.

The thing that struck me as something that I had not considered is that she contends that the "1%" are working towards depopulation/destabilization so as to "Protect" the planet and to cement their rule over the unwashed masses. That the "1%" are using the Islamic hordes and their desire to rule the world with sharia law as the evil to cause this to happen when it is their actions behind the scenes that are really the motivators... Should their desires be achieved, then it is highly reasonable that they can freely use tactics, without worrying about the global rejection of said tactics to wipe the earth clear of the "Islamic Hordes" and then be free and clear in their new ownership of the entire world.

Should one take this in, find a spot for reflection, pack and ruminate whilst drawing upon their Meerschaum pipe, it has a undertone of reasonability...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Shine said:


> OK, six things to expect in the near future.
> 
> 1. Turn 1st and 2nd world countries into third world countries. The focused intention of the immigrants, forced immigrants in this case is to draw down the economies of 1st and 2nd world countries to that of a third world country. This also overwhelms the basic infrastructures of the countries where the immigrants are fleeing to. I have seen this as being happening all the way around. Has anyone been to Denver lately?
> 
> ...


Shine,
I had to reformat this. It is too good to let pass. It should be studied.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

If countries won't accept, and/or support, refugees won't they die? The highest causality rate would be women and children, right? 

Why is the death of (possibly) millions acceptable to so many people on this board? Particularly the members that supposedly espouse a "right to life" agenda and are adamant in their belief in a higher power? Can you point out in your book(s) or teachings where it says it's acceptable to let (possibly) millions die? It's been awhile but I don't think that's what was taught. 

So many posters have said that I (and others of no belief) have no soul, no moral compass, and we can't possibly be decent human beings because we don't believe in a higher power. So I find it highly ironic that so many atheists have more compassion for refugees than the believers. 

Study that for a bit.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

Here's food for thought.....

A white guy goes into a black church in South Carolina and shoots and kills 9 black people. Pictures surface of him with the Confederate flag. Immediately a push to ban the Confederate flag begins, people are desecrating the graves of Confederate soldiers and demanding that all references in public places to the Confederate flag be removed. States quickly remove Confederate flags from their buildings and license plates. Kids wearing clothing with Confederate flags on it to school are forced to change. Anyone with a Confederate flag is painted as a black-hating killer-in-training, because of a single isolated incident perpetrated by *one *person with no links to the KKK or any other white supremacy groups. 

2 Muslims in San Bernardino, California, one of whom lied on her visa application and has clear ties to a very large organization of Muslims who have publicly stated they want to kill any non-Muslims they can, shoot and kill 14 non-Muslims at a Christmas Party. Immediately the president is calling for measures to increase gun control and stating that the American people are not to judge the entire Muslim population due to the actions of these two single representatives of the faith. Anyone who speaks out against allowing more Muslims into the country is called a racist, anyone who points out that this is a jihad is called racist.

I cannot reconcile these two things in my mind without admitting that there is a narrative that the American people are being force-fed. Can you?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

bluemoonluck said:


> Here's food for thought.....
> 
> A white guy goes into a black church in South Carolina and shoots and kills 9 black people. Pictures surface of him with the Confederate flag. Immediately a push to ban the Confederate flag begins, people are desecrating the graves of Confederate soldiers and demanding that all references in public places to the Confederate flag be removed. States quickly remove Confederate flags from their buildings and license plates. Kids wearing clothing with Confederate flags on it to school are forced to change. Anyone with a Confederate flag is painted as a black-hating killer-in-training, because of a single isolated incident perpetrated by *one *person with no links to the KKK or any other white supremacy groups.
> 
> ...


I hope TG comes along to give you the post of the day award !!!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ans-for-killing-in-horrific-act-of-cowardice/


There were many witnesses who said he didn't really do that at all.

He made some comments about "meeting God" if they believed that, but he still shot everyone he could regardless of religion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bluemoonluck said:


> Here's food for thought.....
> 
> A white guy goes into a black church in South Carolina and shoots and kills 9 black people. Pictures surface of him with the Confederate flag. Immediately a push to ban the Confederate flag begins, people are desecrating the graves of Confederate soldiers and demanding that all references in public places to the Confederate flag be removed. States quickly remove Confederate flags from their buildings and license plates. Kids wearing clothing with Confederate flags on it to school are forced to change. Anyone with a Confederate flag is painted as a black-hating killer-in-training, because of a single isolated incident perpetrated by *one *person with no links to the KKK or any other white supremacy groups.
> 
> ...


You can't reconcile the two because you are just comparing the parts of the story you want to. Not everyone wanted the flag banned. A few maybe. Not everyone wants gun control.

Now you can say that different groups who want different things used both events to highlight what they want.


----------

