A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
Any American carrying. Again, I own and defend the 2nd.
I also stated clear support for Amash, but tards are still trying to bait me with democratic references. Sigh.
Donald Trump is making the political class heads explode. It's fantastic.
- Thread starter Headhunter
- Start date
I also stated clear support for Amash, but tards are still trying to bait me with democratic references. Sigh.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
Couple of things to look up while you find your Islam hate memes:
A large demonstration in London led by Muslims protesting terrorism.
Muslims raising 100,000 for Cali victims.
Yeah. They all sit "silent" and celebrate....
A large demonstration in London led by Muslims protesting terrorism.
Muslims raising 100,000 for Cali victims.
Yeah. They all sit "silent" and celebrate....
I still have a hard time understanding why Trump is getting such a pass from so many Republicans. He claims to be an outsider when he freely admits to buying politicians and playing the game his whole life. Any establishment Republican is a RINO but Trump has publicly supported many liberal policies (universal healthcare, gun control, pro-choice) and politicians (Hillary Clinton) throughout his life but that's OK. He's been forced to declare bankruptcy yet is a brilliant businessman. Most of his stances on the issues lack detail or are unrealistic. He actually answers the question about Russia by saying, "I would get a long with Putin." I think Trump's greatest accomplishment is proving just how gullible the American public really is.
He's good for entertainment, and it's fun to watch him take the arrogant media to task. Outside of that, he is an embarrassment.
He's good for entertainment, and it's fun to watch him take the arrogant media to task. Outside of that, he is an embarrassment.
From the time he said McCain was not a hero I've never believed Trump wants to win the Presidency, or even the nomination. He's not electable nationally. I will be shocked if he doesn't withdraw or run as a third party.
That being said, it's sad he turned out to be a fraud and evidently mentally unhinged. If he had been legitimate and a champion of minorities and women, he could have been very electable and perhaps what America, and the world needed.
That being said, it's sad he turned out to be a fraud and evidently mentally unhinged. If he had been legitimate and a champion of minorities and women, he could have been very electable and perhaps what America, and the world needed.
What Trump mostly did with this latest stunt was step on Obama's bad press cycle after his horrendously bad Oval Office speech and change the subject away from that speech, and his administration's desperately silly attempts to spin the San Bernadino shooting and prioritize the wrong things in the aftermath.
Besides, he's making himself look like as a big of a bigot as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
And despite Trump's ill advised remarks, the people saying what he has proposed is unconstitutional are either idiots or proactive liars.
Besides, he's making himself look like as a big of a bigot as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
And despite Trump's ill advised remarks, the people saying what he has proposed is unconstitutional are either idiots or proactive liars.
Last edited:
He sure could. He's a self serving narcissistic lying jerk that is saying what he thinks he needs to say to look out for himself. Being elected is the only goal. Damn the electorate. He just needs to tone up his message to appeal to those he obviously alienates despite his agenda being out of touch with Main Street America.
Oh, were we talking about Trump? My bad. I thought we were discussing HilLIARy CLIEnton.
Despite the lame stream media beating the anti-Trump drum all day, HilLIARly CLIEnton says hello to the ghosts of Benghazi once again.
I haven't seen anything suggesting that guy was motivated by anything other than an extreme dislike for abortions. Got a link that points to religious extremism being a motive?
I don't recall but a handful of people who supported Westboro and they were kin of those idiots. The overwhelming majority of people disapproved of their diatribes and disrespectful actions at funerals and spoke out about those things and publicly protested Westboro in large numbers. Much different with the "peaceful" Muslims who'd rather play ostrich.
CAIR is up to their eyeballs in overt support for Islamic extremism. They use the "silent peaceful" Muslims as pawns to protect those who wish to do harm to the US. The most recent example of their ruses is the dog and pony show press conference immediately following San Bernardino. A press conference attempting to show family members as shocked at Syed's terrorism except we now know various family members were knee deep in the same terrorist activities as Syed.
CAIR is up to their eyeballs in overt support for Islamic extremism. They use the "silent peaceful" Muslims as pawns to protect those who wish to do harm to the US. The most recent example of their ruses is the dog and pony show press conference immediately following San Bernardino. A press conference attempting to show family members as shocked at Syed's terrorism except we now know various family members were knee deep in the same terrorist activities as Syed.
I love the way he pisses off the establishment, but I can't vote for him.
His record of supporting (or even understanding) the Constitution is awful. What would this board be saying if Obama had said this?
“We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.”
His record of supporting (or even understanding) the Constitution is awful. What would this board be saying if Obama had said this?
“We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.”
People often correctly ask why the US believes it should be the entire world's policeman. Under that same banner, why is it necessary for us to play the part of the world orphanage?
There are certainly some things he has said that I agree with, but as a Republican Presidential candidate he is horrible. For Clinton he is great news.
Fact is if he goes Independent we will have to get used to the phrase "Mrs. President". He will hand deliver the Presidency to Clinton.
Fact is if he goes Independent we will have to get used to the phrase "Mrs. President". He will hand deliver the Presidency to Clinton.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
Highly suggest reading this:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/134791529391/risk-management-trump-persuasion-series
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/134791529391/risk-management-trump-persuasion-series
I'm a Christian and was raised in a Baptist church. I went to a couple of funerals to counter-protest them with the hopes of being able to smash one of the adult men in the face. They just did a really good job of getting police protection and sometimes only sent women and little ones out to stand with the signs.
There are so many "experts" who apparently don't know the law. This also applies to Obama and his propaganda puppet, Josh Earnest, and to the countless journalists, including Tom Brokaw, who are flapping their gums and incorrectly writing their columns. Obama is a special case since as a self-proclaimed Constitutional expert, he actually knows very little about the Constitution and misstates and ignores it routinely.
The law in question, 8 USC 1182 - Inadmissible Aliens, was passed in 1952 by a democrat Congress and signed into law by a democrat president. It was used by Jimmah Carter during the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979 to not allow Iranians into the US.
The operative part states:
(f) "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."
The law also has section after section dealing with terrorism and terrorist activities many of which the Boston bombers and these jihadists in San Bernardino violated.
Seems like The Donald was correct.
The law in question, 8 USC 1182 - Inadmissible Aliens, was passed in 1952 by a democrat Congress and signed into law by a democrat president. It was used by Jimmah Carter during the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979 to not allow Iranians into the US.
The operative part states:
(f) "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."
The law also has section after section dealing with terrorism and terrorist activities many of which the Boston bombers and these jihadists in San Bernardino violated.
Seems like The Donald was correct.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
P.S. Twitter had several Christians openly applaud the abortion clinic shooting.
There is also a popular evangelical that called for "making abortion doctors run and hide" on Facebook.
The problem: we have free speech. We aren't thought police. We can't police the thoughts of Christians, Muslims or aethiests. It's not what we are about or have ever been about. Thus, you can't ban immigrants on an ideology.
Banning Syrians is at least debatable. Banning ideology isn't, especially when people may be escaping death for their beliefs.
There is also a popular evangelical that called for "making abortion doctors run and hide" on Facebook.
The problem: we have free speech. We aren't thought police. We can't police the thoughts of Christians, Muslims or aethiests. It's not what we are about or have ever been about. Thus, you can't ban immigrants on an ideology.
Banning Syrians is at least debatable. Banning ideology isn't, especially when people may be escaping death for their beliefs.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
And, if we want "pragmatic" solutions, you are ****ed if you think Muslims will openly share their belief if it determines entry.
It is part of Islamic law that they may lie about their faith if it will cause them harm or loss of property.
It is part of Islamic law that they may lie about their faith if it will cause them harm or loss of property.
It would be done based on their country of origin, not what they claim their religion beliefs are.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
But, that's not what he said.
That is the key difference between this and previous bans of immigrants. It's the reason why people are saying something.
I disagree. We have a fantastic country that was build on the sweat and blood of others and we have a responsibility to see to it that any one who is allowed in will reverently continue the building process rather than seek to tear it down and change it.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
We've allowed countless people into the country throughout history that didn't know the language, share Christian ideology, etc.
The minute you ban one man's thoughts is the moment your own are in danger. In other words, if you ban Islam, all religions become fair game. I don't think it's a track anyone wants to go down.
Is it more dangerous than not banning those who want to completely change our culture of freedom?
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
What exactly are you proposing?
Our culture of freedom is based most strongly on the 1st amendment. You seem to suggest that law has limits.
Setting immigration completely aside (since the constitution doesn't directly apply), what if there were U.S. citizens that wanted to change our culture. Would you have them removed?
P.S. research of Muslims in Western culture suggests that the vast majority of Muslims have no desire to change any freedoms/culture.
I agree that our culture of freedom is strongly based on the 1A, my proposition is that we limit anyone who seeks to remove that right.
What is the validity of the research you reference?
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
If we could only get in a time machine, go back 100 years and keep all of the Catholics from entering the country...
At the time (and a little still to this day), they were considered by many Americans to be just as much a political foe as a religious one.
At the time (and a little still to this day), they were considered by many Americans to be just as much a political foe as a religious one.
So, just to be clear, you are good with people coming here who would remove constitutional rights. Is that true?
Last I checked the only one wanting to remove constitutional rights is a democrat POTUS by the name of Obama. Are you saying he is Muslim thus Muslims want our guns gone? What laws are these radical Muslims taking away from you and I? I mean if this was something about the freedom of speech and there was a big deal made about a cartoon of Muhammad being drawn then I could see your point but we are talking about radical Islam and last I checked they aren't in power here. Really the only ones taking away constitutional rights IMO are Obama and Trump. Of course Hillary will do much the same like Obama and maybe even on a grander scale then him but she isn't in the news right now. I can even give a bit of a pass to Trump because he isn't the POTUS yet. Obama though is taking freedoms and distracting you with Islam.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
I'm telling you that I'm in greater danger of losing constitutional rights by the natural born citizens in congress. (2nd amendment, Patriot Act, etc.)
How exactly will they accomplish this? Again, you are ASSUMING they want to.
I'm not assuming anything. I was replying to the direction of the argument that you made that, "...you can't ban immigrants on an ideology." That is what I disagree with. If someone wants to come here and they want to take away basic rights, I'm strongly against them being here and becoming voting citizens.
IMO if this happens then you will have a lot more to worry about then Muslims voting for Shari law. The war will already be lost and Christianity will already be past the point of ever returning. IMO when you ban something people tend to flock to it so I think a ban will also make it worse on Christians.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
Yes, you are assuming all Muslims want to affect your rights in any way.
You have no way to know what someone from any country intends to do. You want to play thought police, and you will lose.
