2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: macsak on December 08, 2015, 11:08:22 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-japanese-internment_5666ce77e4b079b2818ff063?ts_pid=358&utm_content=inf_2_2457_2&tse_id=INF_5dd3986eb17547eb9e1cf12fd68e89c5
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-japanese-internment_5666ce77e4b079b2818ff063?ts_pid=358&utm_content=inf_2_2457_2&tse_id=INF_5dd3986eb17547eb9e1cf12fd68e89c5
i found this picture in a pamphlet entitled: "The Japs Must Not Come Back!"
http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/calheritage/ucb/jvac/figures/j9CA-729A.jpg
not sure how come they were scared of my dad and his buddy with a snowball behind barbed wire fences
-
i found this picture in a pamphlet entitled: "The Japs Must Not Come Back!"
http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/calheritage/ucb/jvac/figures/j9CA-729A.jpg
not sure how come they were scared of my dad and his buddy with a snowball behind barbed wire fences
Is that really your dad?
-
There's a chance Trump supporters would have supported Hitler and his plan to make Germany great again while making sweeping generalizations of an entire religion of people.
-
There's a chance that if you excuse monstrous behavior under the guise of religion, you'll regret being so gullible.
If Hitler called his ideology the Church of Fascism, does that make their actions off limits to judgement and discrimination?
-
Opposing Trump and supporting religion are not mutually inclusive.
I can call faith unnecessary while at the same time pointing out that fascism isn't the answer to anything. Guilt by association should not be a leading principle of any nation that claims to be civilized.
-
Opposing Trump and supporting religion are not mutually inclusive.
I can call faith unnecessary while at the same time pointing out that fascism isn't the answer to anything. Guilt by association should not be a leading principle of any nation that claims to be civilized.
No one is calling anyone guilty. But to deny entry for someone from a country (Syria) is NOT targeting their religion. No government ever invites the refugees of a country they are having armed conflicts with to settle in their country. It's beyond foolish.
-
maybe if we stopped bombing them and constantly trying to overthrow their governments the enemy wouldn't exist at all.
I guess we should bring back the Chinese exclusion act since we are in the middle of a trade and currency war with China.
-
There's a chance Trump supporters would have supported Hitler and his plan to make Germany great again while making sweeping generalizations of an entire religion of people.
???
-
There's a chance Trump supporters would have supported Hitler and his plan to make Germany great again while making sweeping generalizations of an entire religion of people.
And this is why I think people make comments that not all muslims support terrorism, because they know that there are idiots out there who will act with a crowd mentality and attack an innocent muslim for the act of some terrorist muslim. I think we would tend to find those people among the Trump supporters. I don't know how many though. I see Trump suggesting unconstitutional things and people cheer.
-
And this is why I think people make comments that not all muslims support terrorism, because they know that there are idiots out there who will act with a crowd mentality and attack an innocent muslim for the act of some terrorist muslim. I think we would tend to find those people among the Trump supporters. I don't know how many though. I see Trump suggesting unconstitutional things and people cheer.
Since when is controlling immigration into our country "Unconstitutional"?
Carter did the same in regards to Iran, and that wasn't considered unconstitutional. I don't hear him saying that all Muslim citizens in this country should be rounded up and put in internment camps, only that we shouldn't be letting any more in until we can properly vet them.
Foreigners don't have any "right" to be in our country. We have every right to control their access. We are a sovereign nation.
As far as "sweeping generalizations", look at a world map. Thailand, Indonesia, Africa, Europe and of course the ME, all embroiled in violence due to Islam.
You WANT to bring that shit here?
You guys jumped the shark.
-
There's a chance that if you excuse monstrous behavior under the guise of religion, you'll regret being so gullible.
If Hitler called his ideology the Church of Fascism, does that make their actions off limits to judgement and discrimination?
No, it means they are now a charitable organization and you can make tax deductible donations to that church! :rofl:
-
Is that really your dad?
ummmm
yes
the guy with the glasses
this picture was in the smithsonian museum of american history until they renovated 15 or so years ago
-
And this is why I think people make comments that not all muslims support terrorism, because they know that there are idiots out there who will act with a crowd mentality and attack an innocent muslim for the act of some terrorist muslim. I think we would tend to find those people among the Trump supporters. I don't know how many though. I see Trump suggesting unconstitutional things and people cheer.
You mean kind of like when obama wants to take our guns away? Oh yeah I get it....
:crazy:
-
ummmm
yes
the guy with the glasses
this picture was in the smithsonian museum of american history until they renovated 15 or so years ago
Do you know if JANM in LA has a copy of the photo? I know a few years ago they put out a call to the community asking people to share their photos and accounts to be cataloged for posterity. I don't think he'd support it, I believe he would have supported it given his most recent statement. One has to realize how far astray they've gone when Dick Cheney tells you you're outside the lines...
-
All this wailing and gnashing of teeth by liberals here and elsewhere about what Trump suggested, totally (probably willfully) ignoring their previous messiah, the peanut farmer Carter did precisely the same with Iranians. Oh sure, a smattering were allowablw, but still, the silence and hypocrisy is stunning.
-
Do you know if JANM in LA has a copy of the photo? I know a few years ago they put out a call to the community asking people to share their photos and accounts to be cataloged for posterity.
http://www.densho.org/archives/
type in the family name you are looking for, and it searches the archives
there is another one i was looking for from the parks service or something like that
-
making the excuse that it was done before is not a proper argument. The US govt rounded up Indians and forced them to march across the nation before. The US govt burned women and children alive before. The US govt rounded up the Japanese and sent to camps before. The US allowed slavery before. The US has banned assault weapons before.
you aren't making any semblance of a sound argument in favor of why it's okay to throw due process out the window. You only show just how much you would support fascism.
-
making the excuse that it was done before is not a proper argument. The US govt rounded up Indians and forced them to march across the nation before. The US govt burned women and children alive before. The US govt rounded up the Japanese and sent to camps before. The US allowed slavery before. The US has banned assault weapons before.
you aren't making any semblance of a sound argument in favor of why it's okay to throw due process out the window. You only show just how much you would support fascism.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/015/652/230114_908223010.png)
-
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/015/652/230114_908223010.png)
-
making the excuse that it was done before is not a proper argument. The US govt rounded up Indians and forced them to march across the nation before. The US govt burned women and children alive before. The US govt rounded up the Japanese and sent to camps before. The US allowed slavery before. The US has banned assault weapons before.
you aren't making any semblance of a sound argument in favor of why it's okay to throw due process out the window. You only show just how much you would support fascism.
I can't speak for robtmc, but I think he was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left/liberals in regards to the vitriol spewed by them toward Trump when similar actions were taken under similar circumstances by a Democratic/left/liberal President. Not trying to justify Trumps remarks or any arguments for or against the idea. When Trump suggests it, the left says it's racist, when a Democratic President actually implements the same basic plan, it's what was best for the country.
Sort of like Dianne Feinstein trying to take away everyone's guns yet having a concealed carry permit....
-
You are correct. I love to pounce on liberal hypocrisy.
You'd think they would know better about their vulnerability on this subject, particularly when their blessed Carter actually did it and Trump merely suggested it.
-
You mean kind of like when obama wants to take our guns away? Oh yeah I get it....
:crazy:
Oh, absolutely. That type of individual who will get whipped up into a violent crowd mentality exists on both sides of the spectrum.
-
Since when is controlling immigration into our country "Unconstitutional"?
Carter did the same in regards to Iran, and that wasn't considered unconstitutional. I don't hear him saying that all Muslim citizens in this country should be rounded up and put in internment camps, only that we shouldn't be letting any more in until we can properly vet them.
Foreigners don't have any "right" to be in our country. We have every right to control their access. We are a sovereign nation.
As far as "sweeping generalizations", look at a world map. Thailand, Indonesia, Africa, Europe and of course the ME, all embroiled in violence due to Islam.
You WANT to bring that shit here?
You guys jumped the shark.
Controlling immigration is not the question, how it is controlled is what is at issue.
You are comparing apples and oranges with Iran. Iran is a country and Iranian is a nationality. We can be at war with a country as it is a single entity.
Muslims are not a single entity, we are not at war with all muslims. We cannot even screen for muslims reliably since they can easily lie about their religion.
Blacks in america account for a higher rate of crime than other races, could we use that to justify refusing immigration from anyone who is black?
Our constitution does not allow America to discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Now either we hold true to the constitution that makes us great or we ignore it and lose a little more of our standing as the leader of the free world.
My main point though is that I fear a crowd who is so ready to sacrifice constitutional protections to solve the issue.
-
Opposing Trump and supporting religion are not mutually inclusive.
I can call faith unnecessary while at the same time pointing out that fascism isn't the answer to anything. Guilt by association should not be a leading principle of any nation that claims to be civilized.
Maybe, but when you are dealing with religious beliefs, no matter how immoral, illogical, or destructive, it's almost impossible to get the followers to see that their religion is not "the answer to anything".
People will latch onto the flimsiest sources of hope sometimes, especially if the present situation seems dire.
-
Controlling immigration is not the question, how it is controlled is what is at issue.
You are comparing apples and oranges with Iran. Iran is a country and Iranian is a nationality. We can be at war with a country as it is a single entity.
Muslims are not a single entity, we are not at war with all muslims. We cannot even screen for muslims reliably since they can easily lie about their religion.
Blacks in america account for a higher rate of crime than other races, could we use that to justify refusing immigration from anyone who is black?
Our constitution does not allow America to discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Now either we hold true to the constitution that makes us great or we ignore it and lose a little more of our standing as the leader of the free world.
My main point though is that I fear a crowd who is so ready to sacrifice constitutional protections to solve the issue.
The current issue involves Syrian refugees.
They might be Muslims, but they are also from a country as you like to point out. Denying entry to all Syrians, with some exceptions, would be Constitutional and well advised. We are involved in an armed conflict with Syrians. Permitting Syrians into the country without the means to properly vet them would be foolish and ill advised.
-
Controlling immigration is not the question, how it is controlled is what is at issue.
You are comparing apples and oranges with Iran. Iran is a country and Iranian is a nationality. We can be at war with a country as it is a single entity.
Muslims are not a single entity, we are not at war with all muslims. We cannot even screen for muslims reliably since they can easily lie about their religion.
Blacks in america account for a higher rate of crime than other races, could we use that to justify refusing immigration from anyone who is black?
Our constitution does not allow America to discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Now either we hold true to the constitution that makes us great or we ignore it and lose a little more of our standing as the leader of the free world.
My main point though is that I fear a crowd who is so ready to sacrifice constitutional protections to solve the issue.
Yes, We can!
-
I'm still only seeing excuses for fascism.
constitutionality has nothing to do with being morally right.
If we are in a conflict with Syria maybe all the idiots in Washington DC should actually follow the constitution they so love to claim gives them power and vote for a war.
if they want to exclude a nationality they should put it up to vote like they did the asian exclusion act.
be fascists democratically, the idea that just because it's legal makes it okay is such a shit position. It's the kind of thinking that got us the TSA and high school dropouts in charge of groping kids at the airport for our safety.
stop trying to live according to what a 200 year old piece of paper says is or isn't okay and start applying liberty on a rational and logical basis with respect of the individual kept in mind.
-
stop trying to live according to what a 200 year old piece of paper says is or isn't okay and start applying liberty on a rational and logical basis with respect of the individual kept in mind.
(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Jackie-Chan-WTF.jpg)
-
(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Jackie-Chan-WTF.jpg)
will there be a point at which you actually engage me or will you content yourself to hiding behind passive aggressive images?
-
will there be a point at which you actually engage me or will you content yourself to hiding behind passive aggressive images?
(https://hugelolcdn.com/i700/121510.jpg)
-
To the posters saying Trump's suggestion is unconstitutional: I suggest you reread the constitution, because his proposal does NOT violate it.
There are Supreme Court rulings, Fiallo v. Bell and Kleindiest v. Mandel, which proves the point. Also, let's not forget the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants the President the ability to suspend entry of aliens he deems detrimental to the interests of our society.
Is his proposal a bit much? Perhaps. But it doesn't violate our ruling document. So, instead of spewing leftist talking points about unconstitutionality, maybe you need to research the topic more thoroughly.
Lastly, there is no right for ANYONE to immigrate here. It is a privilege that we, as a people, grant to foreigners. You have to allow strangers into your homes, right? Same applies here.
-
To the posters saying Trump's suggestion is unconstitutional: I suggest you reread the constitution, because his proposal does NOT violate it.
There are Supreme Court rulings, Fiallo v. Bell and Kleindiest v. Mandel, which proves the point. Also, let's not forget the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants the President the ability to suspend entry of aliens he deems detrimental to the interests of our society.
Is his proposal a bit much? Perhaps. But it doesn't violate our ruling document. So, instead of spewing leftist talking points about "unconstitutionality, maybe you need to research the topic more thoroughly.
Lastly, there is no right for ANYONE to immigrate here. It is a privilege that we, as a people, grant to foreigners. You have to allow strangers into your homes, right? Same applies here.
freedom of movement is a natural right and vital to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
you have no right to deny entry to the country, you have the right to deny entry to your own private property.
the government bringing people over while using tax payer money is an entirely different subject and there are very easy and valid criticisms to be made.
stop thinking left vs right, both are just opposing sides of the same coin.
-
I'm still only seeing excuses for fascism.
constitutionality has nothing to do with being morally right.
If we are in a conflict with Syria maybe all the idiots in Washington DC should actually follow the constitution they so love to claim gives them power and vote for a war.
if they want to exclude a nationality they should put it up to vote like they did the asian exclusion act.
be fascists democratically, the idea that just because it's legal makes it okay is such a shit position. It's the kind of thinking that got us the TSA and high school dropouts in charge of groping kids at the airport for our safety.
stop trying to live according to what a 200 year old piece of paper says is or isn't okay and start applying liberty on a rational and logical basis with respect of the individual kept in mind.
You can use whatever label you like, but it comes down to one thing and one thing only: are we going to let the PC police dictate immigration policy?
We would not be doing anything to these refugees other than deny entry to the sovereign land we call the USA. Why are we actively offering refugees from Syria asylum? Why not the countries of Africa? Where are all the people from Afghanistan and Iraq? What states are housing the thousands of refugees from Palestine? Where are the planes loaded with Nigerians? Egyptians? Libyans?
Ask yourself why we are selective in our generosity toward the world's population living in conflict regions?
There have been 220,000-340,000 fatalities in Syria since 2011. Why are we JUST NOW having these debates about refugees? If we are acting out of purely altruistic motives, we would have started bringing refugees to the US 5 years ago, and maybe some of those hundreds of thousand needy souls would still be alive?
It's obvious we DO discriminate when it comes to saving people in conflicts. Instead of being Fascists and denying entry to only the Syrian Muslims, it appears we are actually playing favorites -- trying to push for the Syrian refugees to come here and ignoring the rest in the world.
You can't pretend we are being the saviors of the Syrians this late in the game when so many have already died -- meanwhile, we covertly armed the rebels (ISIS). Then. after 5 years and no end to the conflict, we suddenly grow a conscience and decide inviting them to the US is a good idea.
The administration is not being consistent. If you think we are being Fascists by denying the Syrians entry during an active conflict we are involved in, then we are also being Fascists by not inviting the people of Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Turkey, Somalia, Darfur, Pakistan, Mexico, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Russia, Ukraine and every other nation experiencing economic and military conflict.
Labels are a funny thing. Because I decide I just don't want to help someone does not make me Fascist, racist, or an Unconstitutional outlaw. It makes me an American, free to exercise my right to offer charity where I feel I should, and to not be compelled to provide charity against my will to anyone I do not wish. I do not have to offer a reason as to why I provide charity to this group and not that one. We do not have the resources to offer charity to the world, so someone is going to get left out. Saying we are discriminating illegally is a bad way to change someone's mind, since you do not know what is in someone's mind and heart -- even when they state what they are thinking. Not everyone tells the truth about their feelings.
You are taking the Liberal tact to shame people into doing what YOU think they should do. If I give $500 to the Shriner's Hospital, you ask me why I hate the homeless, or why I am racist for not giving to the NAACP. Forcing someone else to provide charity to those you decide need it does not make you charitable. It makes you a thief.
-
you have no right to deny entry to the country
Wrong. Legal precedent says otherwise. Foreigners have NO RIGHT to come here. The two Supreme Court rulings I cited prove my point. You, on the other hand, are you using nothing more than an Argument by Assertion fallacy.
Also, I noticed you completely ignored the main point of my first post, which is that Trump's proposal does NOT violate the constitution.
-
You can use whatever label you like, but it comes down to one thing and one thing only: are we going to let the PC police dictate immigration policy?
We would not be doing anything to these refugees other than deny entry to the sovereign land we call the USA. Why are we actively offering refugees from Syria asylum? Why not the countries of Africa? Where are all the people from Afghanistan and Iraq? What states are housing the thousands of refugees from Palestine? Where are the planes loaded with Nigerians? Egyptians? Libyans?
Ask yourself why we are selective in our generosity toward the world's population living in conflict regions?
There have been 220,000-340,000 fatalities in Syria since 2011. Why are we JUST NOW having these debates about refugees? If we are acting out of purely altruistic motives, we would have started bringing refugees to the US 5 years ago, and maybe some of those hundreds of thousand needy souls would still be alive?
It's obvious we DO discriminate when it comes to saving people in conflicts. Instead of being Fascists and denying entry to only the Syrians, it appears we are actually playing favorites -- trying to push for the Syrian refugees to come here and ignoring the rest in the world.
You can't pretend we are being the saviors of the Syrians this late in the game when so many have already died -- meanwhile, we covertly armed the rebels (ISIS). Then. after 5 years and no end to the conflict, we suddenly grow a conscience and decide inviting them to the US is a good idea.
The administration is not being consistent. If you thing we are being Fascists by denying the Syrians entry during an active conflict we are involved in, then we are also being Fascists by not inviting the people of Nigerians, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Turkey, Somalia, Darfur, Pakistan, Mexico, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Russia, Ukraine and every other nation experiencing economic and military conflict.
Labels are a funny thing. Just because I decide I just don't want to help someone does not make me Fascist, racist, or an Unconstitutional outlaw. It makes me an American, free to exercise my right to offer charity where I feel I should, and to not be compelled to provide charity against my will to anyone I do not wish. I do not have to offer a reason as to why I provide charity to this group and not that one. We do not have the resources to offer charity to the world, so someone is going to get left out. Saying we are discriminating illegally is a bad way to change someone's mind, since you do not know what is in someone's mind and heart -- even when they state what they are thinking. Not everyone tells the truth about their feelings.
You are taking the Liberal tact to shame people into doing what YOU think they should do. If I give $500 to the Shriner's Hospital, you ask me why I hate the homeless, or why I am racist for not giving to the NAACP. Forcing someone else to provide charity to those you decide need it does not make you charitable. It makes you a thief.
The government using your tax dollars isn't charity. Supporting the idea that government should be able to to decide who can and can't enter the country isn't withholding charity either,
Freedom of movement isn't a PC issue. Calling out fascism when i see it isn't a leftist tactic it's pointing out the truth.
The fault in the "just ban certain people from entering this country" argument is once again you are giving government more power over a problem created by government in the first place.
by all means continue to defend trump and his fascist policies, but don't be surprised when the "threat of islam" isn't stopped because building a wall around the whole country won't do jack shit but keep us trapped inside.
i see a lot of self applied labels and the assumption that i'm a leftist. you're talking with a guy that considers taxation as theft.
i'm not asking for you to take care of the homeless or take in a syrian refugee into your home. I'm asking you to be a decent human being and think rationally about what happens when you give the government sweeping powers over the movement of people while excusing relentless bombing campaigns and overthrowing of foreign governments. you think there aren't consequences for allowing those things to happen?
-
Wrong. Legal precedent says otherwise. Foreigners have NO RIGHT to come here. The two Supreme Court rulings I cited prove my point. You, on the other hand, are you using nothing more than an Argument by Assertion fallacy.
Also, I noticed you completely ignored the main point of my first post, which is that Trump's proposal does NOT violate the constitution.
governments don't have rights, they have powers that they are given through their ability to threaten everyone else into letting them do.
-
Wrong. Legal precedent says otherwise. Foreigners have NO RIGHT to come here. The two Supreme Court rulings I cited prove my point. You, on the other hand, are you using nothing more than an Argument by Assertion fallacy.
Also, I noticed you completely ignored the main point of my first post, which is that Trump's proposal does NOT violate the constitution.
Legality of something is not an argument in favor of it being okay, everything Hitler did was legal
-
freedom of movement is a natural right and vital to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
you have no right to deny entry to the country, you have the right to deny entry to your own private property.
the government bringing people over while using tax payer money is an entirely different subject and there are very easy and valid criticisms to be made.
stop thinking left vs right, both are just opposing sides of the same coin.
Do you truly believe what you wrote?
If so, then in your world, Canada should be able to invade the US, push us all into Mexico, and we have no legal or moral justification to try and stop their "freedom of movement?"
And how does one differentiate between my "private property" where I may deny the Canadians entry, and "the country?" Are not private properties contained within the country?
Do not the tax payers own and maintain all publicly owned properties giving the tax paying citizens the right to defend it?
-
I'm still only seeing excuses for fascism.
constitutionality has nothing to do with being morally right.
If we are in a conflict with Syria maybe all the idiots in Washington DC should actually follow the constitution they so love to claim gives them power and vote for a war.
if they want to exclude a nationality they should put it up to vote like they did the asian exclusion act.
be fascists democratically, the idea that just because it's legal makes it okay is such a shit position. It's the kind of thinking that got us the TSA and high school dropouts in charge of groping kids at the airport for our safety.
stop trying to live according to what a 200 year old piece of paper says is or isn't okay and start applying liberty on a rational and logical basis with respect of the individual kept in mind.
That "200 year old piece of paper" is what the greatest nation the world has ever seen is founded on.
If you don't like what it represents, feel free to move to Europe. You'll be able to live next to all the Muslims you want.
Apply your so called "logic and rationality" to yourself.
-
governments don't have rights, they have powers that they are given through their ability to threaten everyone else into letting them do.
Oh, so now you're just going to respond with non sequiturs. Got it. Supreme Court rulings on the matter are inconsequential to you.
And your whole "freedom of movement" spiel is nothing but pie-in-the-sky silliness. A country is defined by its borders. We have the right, as a sovereign nation, to determine if we want to allow foreigners in. NO ONE has the right to come here just because they want to.
-
The government using your tax dollars isn't charity. Supporting the idea that government should be able to to decide who can and can't enter the country isn't withholding charity either,
Freedom of movement isn't a PC issue. Calling out fascism when i see it isn't a leftist tactic it's pointing out the truth.
The fault in the "just ban certain people from entering this country" argument is once again you are giving government more power over a problem created by government in the first place.
by all means continue to defend trump and his fascist policies, but don't be surprised when the "threat of islam" isn't stopped because building a wall around the whole country won't do jack shit but keep us trapped inside.
i see a lot of self applied labels and the assumption that i'm a leftist. you're talking with a guy that considers taxation as theft.
i'm not asking for you to take care of the homeless or take in a syrian refugee into your home. I'm asking you to be a decent human being and think rationally about what happens when you give the government sweeping powers over the movement of people while excusing relentless bombing campaigns and overthrowing of foreign governments. you think there aren't consequences for allowing those things to happen?
Your strawman generator seems to be working overtime tonight!
Never said these policies would stop the threat of Islam (your words). I may not be able to stop radical Islamic terrorism, but I don't have to put a sign out offering free welfare benefits to all (including Muslims coming from an ISIS-controlled region).
Somehow you think these refugees are just going to enter the country, and then what? Are they going to wander around picking fruit to support themselves and their families?
Once here, they will receive housing, healthcare, assistance under welfare programs for food, and so on. If that's not charity, what is? All at tax payer expense, something the US government has no responsibility to provide to foreign-born non-resident refugees.
-
Legality of something is not an argument in favor of it being okay, everything Hitler did was legal
Oh, and here comes Godwin's Law into play. Nice to see you making the moral equivalence of the two cases I cited with the kangaroo courts in the Third Reich. I'm betting you didn't even read any the two cases listed, but you're going to try and equivocate them with the nonsense of the Nazi judicial system.
-
Freedom of movement is a natural right and vital to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
you have no right to deny entry...
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/b9/b90bb687d42c2f6477271fc2a5ee543701ed160240fc950d4b45afa53cf0fa56.jpg)
-
Your strawman generator seems to be working overtime tonight!
Never said these policies would stop the threat of Islam (your words). I may not be able to stop radical Islamic terrorism, but I don't have to put a sign out offering free welfare benefits to all (including Muslims coming from an ISIS-controlled region).
Somehow you think these refugees are just going to enter the country, and then what? Are they going to wander around picking fruit to support themselves and their families?
Once here, they will receive housing, healthcare, assistance under welfare programs for food, and so on. If that's not charity, what is? All at tax payer expense, something the US government has no responsibility to provide to foreign-born non-resident refugees.
can you point out what part of my argument is a strawman?
the strawman of your argument is the assumption that i support the us govt using taxpayer money to bring refugees into the US. notice i never made such a statement i said allow freedom of movement.
That "200 year old piece of paper" is what the greatest nation the world has ever seen is founded on.
If you don't like what it represents, feel free to move to Europe. You'll be able to live next to all the Muslims you want.
Apply your so called "logic and rationality" to yourself.
spare me the blind patriotism, I've served my time for this country and from what I've seen it isn't a 200 year old piece of paper that the government ignores that made the US a great nation.
Oh, so now you're just going to respond with non sequiturs. Got it. Supreme Court rulings on the matter are inconsequential to you.
And your whole "freedom of movement" spiel is nothing but pie-in-the-sky silliness. A country is defined by its borders. We have the right, as a sovereign nation, to determine if we want to allow foreigners in. NO ONE has the right to come here just because they want to.
do you know what a non sequitur is?
can you provide a chain of logic that provides evidence that governments have rights?
Oh, and here comes Godwin's Law into play. Nice to see you making the moral equivalence of the two cases I cited with the kangaroo courts in the Third Reich. I'm betting you didn't even read any the two cases listed, but you're going to try and equivocate them with the nonsense of the Nazi judicial system.
replace muslim with jew and come back to me once you've realized calling godwin's law is just a cop out to avoid the issue of trump and his supporters being the fascists they are.
-
do you know what a non sequitur is?
can you provide a chain of logic that provides evidence that governments have rights?
Yeah, it's the nonsense you wrote, i.e. it does not follow. I made the point that Trump's proposal isn't unconstitutional, and rather than addressing that original point , you respond with nonsensical drivel about "freedom of movement" and "government not having rights". And you threw in a silly Godwin's Law to top it off.
-
Yeah, it's the nonsense you wrote, i.e. it does not follow. I made the point that Trump's proposal isn't unconstitutional, and rather than addressing that original point , you respond with nonsensical drivel about "freedom of movement" and "government not having rights". And you threw in a silly Godwin's Law to top it off.
that's not what a non sequitur means at all.
you claimed government has a right.
i pointed out that governments do not have rights and gave a description of what it is governments actually have.
you are also misapplying godwin's law as the fascistic policies suggested by trump are a direct reflection of the policies enacted in Nazi Germany.
-
can you point out what part of my argument is a strawman?
the strawman of your argument is the assumption that i support the us govt using taxpayer money to bring refugees into the US. notice i never made such a statement i said allow freedom of movement.
spare me the blind patriotism, I've served my time for this country and from what I've seen it isn't a 200 year old piece of paper that the government ignores that made the US a great nation.
do you know what a non sequitur is?
can you provide a chain of logic that provides evidence that governments have rights?
replace muslim with jew and come back to me once you've realized calling godwin's law is just a cop out to avoid the issue of trump and his supporters being the fascists they are.
[/quote
I quoted you to highlight the strawman -- when you attribute ideas and statements to me that I never said or implied, and then argue against them, that's a strawman!!
Never said these policies would stop the threat of Islam (your words).
It's a given that tax payers are going to support the refugees. You arguing we have no moral or legal grounds for denying them entry demonstrates you believe they should be offered the chance to enter the US. The majority will not have jobs, family or friends here to support them, so you can't escape the logical result: tax payer funded welfare and subsistence, at least for a period of time.
You cannot use Jew and Muslim interchangeably. I can't ever remember hearing of "Radical Jewish Terrorists" killing 3,000 US residents with jumbo jets. My wish is to deny entry to RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. if you cannot discern those Muslims from those who are not radicals, then it is stupid to open the doors and let them ALL into the country. There are no records, agencies, or programs to effectively weed out the threats from the no-risk refugees. That was proven in California last week.
We have NO mandate to accept refugees from anywhere. If the refugees represent a potential threat, then we can offer monetary support wherever they can get permission to settle. If they are unable to find a place, please explain why that is OUR problem?
-
replace muslim with jew and come back to me once you've realized calling godwin's law is just a cop out to avoid the issue of trump and his supporters being the fascists they are.
It's not a cop out, it's putting your silliness into focus. Tell me how exactly are Jews engaging in global jihadist terrorism again?
-
can you point out what part of my argument is a strawman?
the strawman of your argument is the assumption that i support the us govt using taxpayer money to bring refugees into the US. notice i never made such a statement i said allow freedom of movement.
spare me the blind patriotism, I've served my time for this country and from what I've seen it isn't a 200 year old piece of paper that the government ignores that made the US a great nation.
do you know what a non sequitur is?
can you provide a chain of logic that provides evidence that governments have rights?
replace muslim with jew and come back to me once you've realized calling godwin's law is just a cop out to avoid the issue of trump and his supporters being the fascists they are.
[/quote
I quoted you to highlight the strawman -- when you attribute ideas and statements to me that I never said or implied, and then argue against them, that's a strawman!!
Never said these policies would stop the threat of Islam (your words).
It's a given that tax payers are going to support the refugees. You arguing we have no moral or legal grounds for denying them entry demonstrates you believe they should be offered the chance to enter the US. The majority will not have jobs, family or friends here to support them, so you can't escape the logical result: tax payer funded welfare and subsistence, at least for a period of time.
You cannot use Jew and Muslim interchangeably. I can't ever remember hearing of "Radical Jewish Terrorists" killing 3,000 US residents with jumbo jets. My wish is to deny entry to RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. if you cannot discern those Muslims from those who are not radicals, then it is stupid to open the doors and let them ALL into the country. There are no records, agencies, or programs to effectively weed out the threats from the no-risk refugees. That was proven in California last week.
We have NO mandate to accept refugees from anywhere. If the refugees represent a potential threat, then we can offer monetary support wherever they can get permission to settle. If they are unable to find a place, please explain why that is OUR problem?
allow me to revise then, refusing immigration from Syrian won't stop the Syrian threat.
As an addendum your argument is the strawman, as i have stated I am against the US govt using tax payer money to bring refugees to the US. I am simply arguing for freedom of movement and denouncing fascist policies that have no merit.
-
that's not what a non sequitur means at all.
you claimed government has a right.
i pointed out that governments do not have rights and gave a description of what it is governments actually have.
you are also misapplying godwin's law as the fascistic policies suggested by trump are a direct reflection of the policies enacted in Nazi Germany.
I make a point about the constitutionality of Trump's proposal and your response doesn't address that. Yeah, non sequitur.
I claimed the Government has rights? Okay, now you're setting fire to your strawman. And I didn't misapply anything. Just pointed out you using it in a debate, which you did.
-
It's not a cop out, it's putting your silliness into focus. Tell me how exactly are Jews engaging in global jihadist terrorism again?
it's not a cop out if you understand the history behind the German Revolutionary War of 1918-19 and how the actions of the Bolshevik revolutionaries led by mostly Jews were at war with the German Empire and the Wiemar Republic. These events leading to the rise of Hitler and the scapegoating of all Jews as the main cause for the problems of Germany.
-
Quote from: edster48 on Today at 10:02:17 PM
That "200 year old piece of paper" is what the greatest nation the world has ever seen is founded on.
If you don't like what it represents, feel free to move to Europe. You'll be able to live next to all the Muslims you want.
Apply your so called "logic and rationality" to yourself.
spare me the blind patriotism, I've served my time for this country and from what I've seen it isn't a 200 year old piece of paper that the government ignores that made the US a great nation
That 200 year old piece of paper is not just a piece of paper. it is a contract between the people and the government. It's a set of ideas and principles that have made the US different than any nation to come before. It is a doctrine that entrusts the governance of the nation to the people, not a king or dictator, and not a bunch of elites who happen to own the most property.
The greatest characteristic of the Constitution is that it can be changed. It's not easy, but the fact remains that the founders were wise enough to know they were not infallible. They knew they probably made mistakes. Our nation has proposed and ratified amendments 27 times. If there are any other major gaps, and we as a major majority agree to more changes, the option is there.
You can call the Constitution whatever you wish (First Amendment right - one of those "changes"). But to denigrate and insult people as having "blind patriotism," when it is you who are blind to what that document and the ideas behind it represents, is typical of Arrogant Left Wing Academics.
The founders created a COUNTRY, which became the most powerful and prosperous country in the world in an amazingly short time. What have you created lately, since you seem to view your knowledge and opinions to be superior to the likes of John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington?
-
I make a point about the constitutionality of Trump's proposal and your response doesn't address that. Yeah, non sequitur.
I claimed the Government has rights? Okay, now you're setting fire to your strawman. And I didn't misapply anything. Just pointed out you using it in a debate, which you did.
constitutionality doesn't mean anything, the government saying it's legal to own slaves doesn't have any bearing on the morality of slavery.
-
Quote from: edster48 on Today at 10:02:17 PM
That "200 year old piece of paper" is what the greatest nation the world has ever seen is founded on.
If you don't like what it represents, feel free to move to Europe. You'll be able to live next to all the Muslims you want.
Apply your so called "logic and rationality" to yourself.
spare me the blind patriotism, I've served my time for this country and from what I've seen it isn't a 200 year old piece of paper that the government ignores that made the US a great nation
That 200 year old piece of paper is not just a piece of paper. it is a contract between the people and the government. It's a set of ideas and principles that have made the US different than any nation to come before. It is a doctrine that entrusts the governance of the nation to the people, not a king or dictator, and not a bunch of elites who happen to own the most property.
The greatest characteristic of the Constitution is that it can be changed. It's not easy, but the fact remains that the founders were wise enough to know they were not infallible. They knew they probably made mistakes. Our nation has made proposed and ratified amendments 27 times. If there are any other major gaps, and we as a major majority agree to more changes, the option is there.
You can call the Constitution whatever you wish (First Amendment right - one of those "changes"). But to denigrate and insult people as having "blind patriotism," when it is you who are blind to what that document and the ideas behind it represents, is typical of Arrogant Left Wing Academics.
The founders created a COUNTRY, which became the most powerful and prosperous country in the world in an amazingly short time. What have you created lately, since you seem to view your knowledge and opinions to be superior to the likes of John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington?
If the constitution is indeed a binding contract between the US government and the people, where is your signature on it?
-
Interesting that you call me a leftist once again. I'm not a leftist at all.
-
constitutionality doesn't mean anything, the government saying it's legal to own slaves doesn't have any bearing on the morality of slavery.
Then you must be in favor of anarchy,if you're unwilling to accept legal precedent that has not been challenged like the Dred Scott decision. Or are you trying to equate slavery with the ability of the sovereign nation to determine who it let's in?
-
Interesting that you call me a leftist once again. I'm not a leftist at all.
Your quasi-open borders appeal makes you sound like one.
-
Then you must be in favor of anarchy,if you're unwilling to accept legal precedent that has not been challenged like the Dred Scott decision. Or are you trying to equate slavery with the ability of the sovereign nation to determine who it let's in?
You're quasi-open borders appeal makes you sound like one.
I am a libertarian. I maintain that all people should be free of coercion and secure in their property,
-
Interesting that you call me a leftist once again. I'm not a leftist at all.
If it quacks like a duck ...
I'm not calling you personally anything. I'm characterizing the debate and argument tactics you are using, as they happen to be very close to those the Left use when they have nothing with which to back up their points besides false premises, labeling and insults.
-
If the constitution is indeed a binding contract between the US government and the people, where is your signature on it?
It appears you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for your arguments!! :rofl:
My representatives signed it, for the most part long before I was born.
The contract is in the document. Do as I wish, or I will use my rights to petition the government and change representatives to the best of my ability.
-
If it quacks like a duck ...
I'm not calling you personally anything. I'm characterizing the debate and argument tactics you are using, as they happen to be very close to those the Left use when they have nothing with which to back up their points besides false premises, labeling and insults.
just like you said, if it quacks like a duck
-
It appears you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for your arguments!! :rofl:
My representatives signed it, for the most part long before I was born.
The contract is in the document. Do as I wish, or I will use my rights to petition the government and change representatives to the best of my ability.
you can consent to contracts before you were born? that's a serious assumption.
what of the millions of people that did not for for their representatives? the millions that can't vote? the millions that don't vote?
-
i caution you on relying on the tyranny of the majority as evidence of greatness.
-
I would also like to point out that the constitution is not a founding document to the nation, it was the second framework to the United States for a basis of federal government and it's powers(not rights).
The true founding document of the United States is the Declaration of Independence, which lays out a much better limitation on the powers(not rights) of government.
Conveniently for the United States government there is no requirement for it to follow the principles laid out within the Declaration of Independence.
-
you can consent to contracts before you were born? that's a serious assumption.
what of the millions of people that did not for for their representatives? the millions that can't vote? the millions that don't vote?
Do you only follow laws which were enacted during your lifetime, and only after you reached that age of majority?
No? Why would you be held legally bound to laws passed without a legislative representative agreeing to the laws on your behalf? You should be able to just ignore all the laws you don't agree with if they were created before you had representation, I guess. :rofl:
-
Aegis, are you a Murray Rothbard disciple?
-
Do you only follow laws which were enacted during your lifetime, and only after you reached that age of majority?
No? Why would you be held legally bound to laws passed without a legislative representative agreeing to the laws on your behalf? You should be able to just ignore all the laws you don't agree with if they were created before you had representation, I guess. :rofl:
we probably should.
The only reason i follow laws i haven't agreed to is because i want to. the laws i don't like i don't follow.
The questions that you should be asking are, how many laws do you break each day even though you never agreed to them in the first place? how many laws are there that you don't even know about? How many laws have been created in direct violation of the contract that government is supposedly bound to follow? What happens when the government breaks the contract? What happens when you break the contract that you signed before you were born?
-
Aegis, are you a Murray Rothbard disciple?
I agree with some of his positions.
-
we probably should.
The only reason i follow laws i haven't agreed to is because i want to. the laws i don't like i don't follow.
The questions that you should be asking are, how many laws do you break each day even though you never agreed to them in the first place? how many laws are there that you don't even know about? How many laws have been created in direct violation of the contract that government is supposedly bound to follow? What happens when the government breaks the contract? What happens when you break the contract that you signed before you were born?
I'm done. You have taken this thread about as far off topic as anything I've ever seen!
Good night! :sleeping:
-
I'm done. You have taken this thread about as far off topic as anything I've ever seen!
Good night! :sleeping:
i wasn't the one basing my position off the constitutionality of certain actions by the government.
good night though
-
The only reason i follow laws i haven't agreed to is because i want to. the laws i don't like i don't follow.
-
The current issue involves Syrian refugees.
They might be Muslims, but they are also from a country as you like to point out. Denying entry to all Syrians, with some exceptions, would be Constitutional and well advised. We are involved in an armed conflict with Syrians. Permitting Syrians into the country without the means to properly vet them would be foolish and ill advised.
Again, apples and oranges. You are talking about Syrians and for the most part I think I would agree with you there, but the comment by Trump was about denying entry to Muslims, not Syrians.
-
To the posters saying Trump's suggestion is unconstitutional: I suggest you reread the constitution, because his proposal does NOT violate it.
There are Supreme Court rulings, Fiallo v. Bell and Kleindiest v. Mandel, which proves the point. Also, let's not forget the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants the President the ability to suspend entry of aliens he deems detrimental to the interests of our society.
Is his proposal a bit much? Perhaps. But it doesn't violate our ruling document. So, instead of spewing leftist talking points about unconstitutionality, maybe you need to research the topic more thoroughly.
Lastly, there is no right for ANYONE to immigrate here. It is a privilege that we, as a people, grant to foreigners. You have to allow strangers into your homes, right? Same applies here.
I am going to have to read up on the court case and the law in question for some more context, but I am not sure if your reasoning stands, and I will explain why.
At stores or restaurants you might have seen the sign that says a restaurant reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. It does hold true according to law that a restaurant owner can refuse service to anyone, however other laws we have dictate that the refusal of service cannot be based on certain traits (protected classes). A restaurant cannot deny service to an individual because the individual is black for example even though they legally have the right to refuse service to anyone.
On top of that, even though people wishing to immigrate do not have all the rights of citizens I think the point can be made that we as the leaders of the free world and protector of freedoms also practice what we preach. That doesn't mean we just let everyone in, but it does mean having a better, more just screening method than simply whether a person is muslim or not.
-
That "200 year old piece of paper" is what the greatest nation the world has ever seen is founded on.
Amen brother Ed !
That said.....
Wasn't this country based in part on freedom of religion ?
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
-
Amen brother Ed !
That said.....
Wasn't this country based in part on freedom of religion ?
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
That 3 word phrase, "freedom of religion", has been re-interpreted and warped into so many definitions including freedom FROM religion, that it no longer means what it did when the country was founded. The founders actually called it "separation of church and state." As stated: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
In England, you had to belong to, and worship under, the state-approved Church of England if you expected to ever hold public office. This was the cornerstone of the religious freedom concept. As more colonists arrived, the number of religions and sects began to increase. That is when it was decided people have an individual right to worship however they choose.
Three words, freedom of religion, will never express the founding principles in a way that truly captures the intent.
-
My bad.....how about 5 words.....
The free exercise of religion.
Didn't know you needed the extra words. Kinda thought they meant the same thing.
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Doesn't say anything about holding office or public trust
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
-
When exercising your religion involves killing people the situation warrants a closer look.
-
When exercising your religion involves killing people the situation warrants a closer look.
better kick out all the christians for the bombing of abortions clinics, mass genocide in africa, and the IRA jus to name a few.
-
Quote from news review
https://www.newsreview.com/reno/christian-terrorism/content?oid=19285006
Rev. Paul Jennings Hill killed an abortion provider and his bodyguard.
The Dylann Roof murders at an African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston,
Klansman Frazier Glenn Cross’s killings of several Kansas Jews,
Scott Roeder’s murder of a Kansas abortion provider,
Wade Michael Page’s massacre at a Wisconsin Sikh temple,
it goes on and on. One wonders whether Muslims in other nations can help but consider the United States and its Christians to be a murderous people. Should we, given our history of violence, be described by a term like “Christian terrorism”?
But I agree with this 100%
As far as "sweeping generalizations", look at a world map. Thailand, Indonesia, Africa, Europe and of course the ME, all embroiled in violence due to Islam.
You WANT to bring that shit here
And yet...
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
-
better kick out all the christians for the bombing of abortions clinics, mass genocide in africa, and the IRA jus to name a few.
That's actually funny! :rofl:
Please post your sources for all of the Christians involved in "mass genocides in Africa".
When was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed, the bomber identified and convicted, and the bomber confessed to acting on the basis of his Christian beliefs? (Hint: The last time anyone was convicted of bombing a clinic was in 1998, and his motives were based more on his own personal beliefs as opposed to following the Bible).
The Irish Republican Army (IRA) is any of several armed movements in Ireland in the 20th and 21st centuries dedicated to Irish republicanism, the belief that all of Ireland should be an independent republic.
How does the IRA activities have any bearing on immigration to the US? There have been no IRA attacks on US soil as far as I know. Can't say that about Radical Islamic Terrorists.
-
Quote from news review
https://www.newsreview.com/reno/christian-terrorism/content?oid=19285006
Rev. Paul Jennings Hill killed an abortion provider and his bodyguard.
The Dylann Roof murders at an African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston,
Klansman Frazier Glenn Cross’s killings of several Kansas Jews,
Scott Roeder’s murder of a Kansas abortion provider,
Wade Michael Page’s massacre at a Wisconsin Sikh temple,
it goes on and on. One wonders whether Muslims in other nations can help but consider the United States and its Christians to be a murderous people. Should we, given our history of violence, be described by a term like “Christian terrorism”?
But I agree with this 100%
And yet...
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
Merely being associated with a religion, including Christianity and Islam, doesn't make you a Radical Terrorist controlled by your beliefs in that religion.
However, when a terrorist screams "Allahu Akbar!!" during the commission of an attack, it's apparent their motives lie in their religious beliefs.
For example: a racially motivated shooting of Black South Carolina church goers is not a Christian Terror Attack, no matter if the attacker is a Christian or not. Christianity does not motivate anyone to kill indiscriminately people of other races.
-
I am going to have to read up on the court case and the law in question for some more context, but I am not sure if your reasoning stands, and I will explain why.
At stores or restaurants you might have seen the sign that says a restaurant reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. It does hold true according to law that a restaurant owner can refuse service to anyone, however other laws we have dictate that the refusal of service cannot be based on certain traits (protected classes). A restaurant cannot deny service to an individual because the individual is black for example even though they legally have the right to refuse service to anyone.
On top of that, even though people wishing to immigrate do not have all the rights of citizens I think the point can be made that we as the leaders of the free world and protector of freedoms also practice what we preach. That doesn't mean we just let everyone in, but it does mean having a better, more just screening method than simply whether a person is muslim or not.
Funny. You admit to not reading the legal findings in the two cited cases, but that doesn't stop you from trying to concoct some hypothetical scenario to back up your claims. Try this: read the cases, and see how they correspond to the constitutionality of the Trump's proposal and then form your argument against the legal findings in the cited decisions.
-
Funny. You admit to not reading the legal findings in the two cited cases, but that doesn't stop you from trying to concoct some hypothetical scenario to back up your claims. Try this: read the cases, and see how they correspond to the constitutionality of the Trump's proposal and then form your argument against the legal findings in the cited decisions.
I wish it could be that easy to change people's ways ...
-
you can't be that naive to believe that none of these other attacks in America are not based on a religion other than Islam.
how about 5 words.....
The free exercise of religion.
Didn't know you needed the extra words. Kinda thought they meant the same thing.
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
-
you can't be that naive to believe that none of these other attacks in America are not based on a religion other than Islam.
Enlighten me, please. I've been to Sunday School, many sermons, and lots of retreats at churches.
I've never read or heard of any Christian teachings or Bible passages which equate to the Koran's concept of Jihad.
Where, exactly is that principle taught in Christianity today, that it would make us wary of allowing Christians into the US?
-
you can't be that naive to believe that none of these other attacks in America are not based on a religion other than Islam.
You tend to gravitate toward absolutes using words like "all", "always", never" and "none or no".
All Jihadists are motivated by their religion to commit violence and murder.
Some Christians may have been motivated in part by their religious beliefs to commit violence, but the cases I am thinking of are targeting people who are committing infanticide or other acts viewed as mortal sins. Christians are not randomly shooting up conference centers, schools, recruiting centers, marathons and finance centers. Jihadists commit their crimes against symbolic or easy targets to make demands or some political/religious statement. Their act is not intended to destroy the cause of their gripes, but to coerce the government or the public to solve those gripes or suffer additional random attacks on targets unrelated to the problem.
Most Domestic terror attacks actually try to destroy the cause of their gripes: abortion centers, federal agency buildings, etc. Most home-grown extremist groups will send a pipe bomb to a judge they don't like before bombing a school and demanding that judge be removed from the bench!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2Q4xa2H.jpg)
When was the last time you saw a similar warning to not insult Christians for fear of violent responses?
-
You better not insult us Atheists either. Because we are allied with the Underpants Gnomes:
-
:stopjack:
since MauiD's all over the place again.
(And apparently really is that naive.)
This Country is built in part on the free exercise of religion.
(Again MauiD gets his panties in a bunch if you say freedom of religion)
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
If we give up our freedoms and our liberty are we not against everything we stand for ?
This is not about refugees and not about Syrians. This is about rejecting every Muslim who wants to move here.
I can see anyone, regardless of religion, who travels to parts of the Middle East ain't allowed back.
(Other than military etc.)
On the other hand...
Foreigners don't have any "right" to be in our country. We have every right to control their access. We are a sovereign nation.
As far as "sweeping generalizations", look at a world map. Thailand, Indonesia, Africa, Europe and of course the ME, all embroiled in violence due to Islam.
You WANT to bring that shit here?
-
That's actually funny! :rofl:
Please post your sources for all of the Christians involved in "mass genocides in Africa".
When was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed, the bomber identified and convicted, and the bomber confessed to acting on the basis of his Christian beliefs? (Hint: The last time anyone was convicted of bombing a clinic was in 1998, and his motives were based more on his own personal beliefs as opposed to following the Bible).
How does the IRA activities have any bearing on immigration to the US? There have been no IRA attacks on US soil as far as I know. Can't say that about Radical Islamic Terrorists.
islamic terrorism around the world matters but christian terrorism around the world doesn't
that's a very nice double standard you have there mauidog.
so do you only care about terrorism within the US?
the ku klux klan is the christian isis
but to be even more realistic lets just discuss the amount of terror on the streets of the US in general
the number of deaths by terrorism since 2001 is 390 deaths
number of deaths by auto accidents is over 19,000 for 2015 alone
we don't even need to care about religion on this Trump should be banning automobiles
-
i don't understand why Trump can't see the real problem! Ban the importation of foreign cars!
-
islamic terrorism around the world matters but christian terrorism around the world doesn't
that's a very nice double standard you have there mauidog.
so do you only care about terrorism within the US?
the ku klux klan is the christian isis
but to be even more realistic lets just discuss the amount of terror on the streets of the US in general
the number of deaths by terrorism since 2001 is 390 deaths
number of deaths by auto accidents is over 19,000 for 2015 alone
we don't even need to care about religion on this Trump should be banning automobiles
Please post your sources for all of the Christians involved in "mass genocides in Africa."
I made it bigger since you apparently missed it the first time.
If you aren't able to find the info, it's probably because your statement is 100% BS.
I do care about terrorism around the world, but I care more when it affects our country. I have many more family and friends I care about here in the US than overseas.
I lost 12 friends and co-workers on 9/11 at the Pentagon. Sounds from your posts like you need to love the US a little more, then perhaps you'd care more about keeping terrorists away, too.
-
:stopjack:
since MauiD's all over the place again.
(And apparently really is that naive.)
This Country is built in part on the free exercise of religion.
(Again MauiD gets his panties in a bunch if you say freedom of religion)
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
If we give up our freedoms and our liberty are we not against everything we stand for ?
This is not about refugees and not about Syrians. This is about rejecting every Muslim who wants to move here.
I can see anyone, regardless of religion, who travels to parts of the Middle East ain't allowed back.
(Other than military etc.)
On the other hand...
Typical jerk comment again from you. You must really love me to give me such special attention all the time. I bet EEF is jealous!
:wave:
-
:stopjack:
This Country is built in part on the free exercise of religion.
"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
If we give up our freedoms and our liberty are we not against everything we stand for ?
This is not about refugees and not about Syrians. This is about rejecting every Muslim who wants to move here.
I can see anyone, regardless of religion, who travels to parts of the Middle East ain't allowed back.
(Other than military etc.)
On the other hand...
Edited because apparently I hurt the pussy's feelings.
P.s.
Mods I know this is wrong but if people throw stones.......
And I think the post has merit for discussion.
-
Please post your sources for all of the Christians involved in "mass genocides in Africa."
I made it bigger since you apparently missed it the first time.
If you aren't able to find the info, it's probably because your statement is 100% BS.
I do care about terrorism around the world, but I care more when it affects our country. I have many more family and friends I care about here in the US than overseas.
I lost 12 friends and co-workers on 9/11 at the Pentagon. Sounds from your posts like you need to love the US a little more, then perhaps you'd care more about keeping terrorists away, too.
I've actually been to afghanistan and seen the "terrorism" you're afraid of, I've been under sniper fire and run over IEDs, I've tortured afghans under orders and I sat by as we blew up people's mud huts with $40,000 bombs.
This problem of terrorism wouldn't exist if our government weren't creating it in the first place.
your christian terrorism doesn't get much coverage cause africa doesn't matter to the greatest nation on earth.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
-
I've actually been to afghanistan and seen the "terrorism" you're afraid of, I've been under sniper fire and run over IEDs, I've tortured afghan's under orders and I sat by as we blew up people's mud huts with $40,000 bombs.
Really?
What unit are you with?
And what AO?
And what year?
And who was your commanding officer so I can make some calls and find out if that really happened?
I find it strange because most people that actually did that kind of stuff don't tend to talk about it.
You know, since torturing people is against the Geneva convention and a war crime punishable by law and all.
(https://i.imgflip.com/vkr3z.jpg)
-
I've actually been to afghanistan and seen the "terrorism" you're afraid of, I've been under sniper fire and run over IEDs, I've tortured afghan's under orders and I sat by as we blew up people's mud huts with $40,000 bombs.
This problem of terrorism wouldn't exist if our government weren't creating it in the first place.
your christian terrorism doesn't get much coverage cause africa doesn't matter to the greatest nation on earth.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
"Christian Terrorism" would get coverage 24/7 in the US IF IT EXISTED AT ALL. Do you think the main stream media here would not jump all over that? Do you think the media here plays favorites when Christians do bad things by burying the stories?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
At least 21 people have been killed in Bangui on Saturday and about 100 others wounded as Muslims attacked a mainly Christian neighbourhood, a government spokesman said.
The reprisal attack in the capital of Central African Republic comes after a Muslim man was killed and his body found dumped in a street close to the airport.
Muslims left their stronghold in the third district of Bangui and attacked the largely Christian fifth district using automatic guns, heavier weapons and grenades.
The religious and ethnic unrest, which erupted after Muslim Séléka rebels seized power in the majority Christian country in 2013, has left the country divided. Two years of violence in the landlocked country has killed thousands of people and forced many more to leave their homes.
There had not been any attacks in Bangui for months until a grenade attack earlier in September. This latest conflict is the worst violence this year in a city secured by French and UN peacekeepers.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/27/central-african-republic-violent-sectarian-clashes-erupt-in-bangui
-
(http://i.imgur.com/ZtzzFzb.jpg)
-
Really?
What unit are you with?
And what AO?
And what year?
And who was your commanding officer so I can make some calls and find out if that really happened?
I find it strange because most people that actually did that kind of stuff don't tend to talk about it.
You know, since torturing people is against the Geneva convention and a war crime punishable by law and all.
I was attached to 3/2 3rd MAR DIV as a part of their Police training/ Human Intel as a combat replacement
RC southwest in Musa Qala, Sangin, and Now Zad
2011, May - November
i couldn't be bothered to remember who the CO at the time was
it's strange how our snipers got busted for pissing on dead bodies but no one knows about the HUMINT team because we weren't stupid enough to take pictures of what we did.
most people don't talk about it because they don't want to admit the fact that they were nothing more than thugs paid by the government. More vets need to start speaking up about what they are doing and how it has absolutely nothing to do with defending the US.
-
"Christian Terrorism" would get coverage 24/7 in the US IF IT EXISTED AT ALL. Do you think the main stream media here would not jump all over that? Do you think the media here plays favorites when Christians do bad things by burying the stories?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/27/central-african-republic-violent-sectarian-clashes-erupt-in-bangui
it's easy for you to look up the latest headlines and ignore the almost 3 decades worth of sectarian violence going on in the area. But of course confirm your bias by only seeing what you want to see.
-
it's easy for you to look up the latest headlines and ignore the almost 3 decades worth of sectarian violence going on in the area. But of course confirm your bias by only seeing what you want to see.
And did you purposely leave out the reason there is fighting there in the fist place?
Did you notice it's the MUSLIMS using terrorist tactics? The Christians are defending themselves. They are not attacking the Muslims without provocation. The Christians are organized as militias, according to your article. They are not terrorists.
Sort of shoots all kinds of holes in your "Christian Terrorist" lies.
-
And did you purposely leave out the reason there is fighting there in the fist place?
Did you notice it's the MUSLIMS using terrorist tactics? The Christians are defending themselves. They are not attacking the Muslims without provocation. The Christians are organized as militias, according to your article. They are not terrorists.
Sort of shoots all kinds of holes in your "Christian Terrorist" lies.
you ignored the 3 decades worth of violence from both sides. why is one side a terrorist and not the other?
-
i couldn't be bothered to remember who the CO at the time was
How can you not remember your commanding officer? I remember my entire company chain of command and most of the battalion CoC as well.
I was attached to 3/2 3rd MAR DIV as a part of their Police training/ Human Intel as a combat replacement
RC southwest in Musa Qala, Sangin, and Now Zad
2011, May - November
Interesting....because I was actually involved in a mission with 3/2 escorting personnel from Kandahar Air Field to Musa Qala that never panned out.
What was the name of the base you were at, and what company were you apart of?
it's strange how our snipers got busted for pissing on dead bodies but no one knows about the HUMINT team because we weren't stupid enough to take pictures of what we did.
most people don't talk about it because they don't want to admit the fact that they were nothing more than thugs paid by the government. More vets need to start speaking up about what they are doing and how it has absolutely nothing to do with defending the US.
So in one sentence you brag about what you did and how you weren't caught, and then in the next you cry and complain (as in previous posts) about how we are nothing but paid thugs. Interesting.
Oh, I was also an MP that did a whole bunch of shit while in RC south, but torture people? I highly doubt it. If that really happened, your unit would all be in jail right now, especially since you are in the later waves of deployment and most Afghans know that shit is against the law. And if that absolute did happen, then you are the prime example of why the Afghans hate us. If you are so passionate that America is in the wrong, you could have easily reported it through the proper channels and prevented such things from happening, yet you didn't. You were not only bound to uphold the constitution, but to do what was right.
In conclusion:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zy6JfChIXxg/hqdefault.jpg)
PS: There is one particularly hilarious event that happened around the time you got there, outside the base in Musa Qala that the boys from 3/2 talked about. Can you tell me what that was and what company it was that did it? Hint: it involves mud.
-
How can you not remember your commanding officer? I remember my entire company chain of command and most of the battalion CoC as well
Interesting....because I was actually involved in a mission with 3/2 escorting personnel from Kandahar Air Field to Musa Qala that never panned out.
What was the name of the base you were at, and what company were you apart of?
So in one sentence you brag about what you did and how you weren't caught, and then in the next you cry and complain (as in previous posts) about how we are nothing but paid thugs. Interesting.
Oh, I was also an MP that did a whole bunch of shit while in RC south, but torture people? I highly doubt it. If that really happened, your unit would all be in jail right now, especially since you are in the later waves of deployment and most Afghans know that shit is against the law. And if that absolute did happen, then you are the prime example of why the Afghans hate us. If you are so passionate that America is in the wrong, you could have easily reported it through the proper channels and prevented such things from happening, yet you didn't. You were not only bound to uphold the constitution, but to do what was right.
In conclusion:
PS: There is one particularly hilarious event that happened around the time you got there, outside the base in Musa Qala that the boys from 3/2 talked about. Can you tell me what that was and what company it was that did it? Hint: it involves mud.
There's no need for me to continue ti entertain veteran call out culture, as validity of of an argument about immigration control has no basis in being in the military. It's the cowards option for trying to validate your opinion on the issue by ignoring criticisms that don't conform to your narrative of the war.
i doubt telling you about the battalion shitbag popping purple smoke on top of the whitehouse or the time one of the villagers attacked a lost abrams with a frag grenade will alleviate any of your biases. I could tell you about the ANA truck that took and IED hit and then got lit up by the other ANA truck behind it and how the one survivor of the IED bled out thanks to a 7.62x54R sized hole in his back.
you don't know me or what i've done and i don't hinge my arguments on that. I'm not a line grunt and my job had me moving with HUMINT, so of course you don't know anything about what we did considering that the very same tactics we used are also used in GITMO. You don't get medals for what i did, seeing as the reports of them don't ever see the light of day. It's a big war, stop trying to dig up evidence to confirm your bias.
-
Q, you really can't expect a "gov't-paid thug" to report violations of international treaties and the US Constitution to his chain of command when he doesn't even know his CO's name!! :rofl:
-
There's no need for me to continue ti entertain veteran call out culture, as validity of of an argument about immigration control has no basis in being in the military. It's the cowards option for trying to validate your opinion on the issue by ignoring criticisms that don't conform to your narrative of the war.
i doubt telling you about the battalion shitbag popping purple smoke on top of the whitehouse or the time one of the villagers attacked a lost abrams with a frag grenade will alleviate any of your biases. I could tell you about the ANA truck that took and IED hit and then got lit up by the other ANA truck behind it and how the one survivor of the IED bled out thanks to a 7.62x54R sized hole in his back.
you don't know me or what i've done and i don't hinge my arguments on that. I'm not a line grunt and my job had me moving with HUMINT, so of course you don't know anything about what we did considering that the very same tactics we used are also used in GITMO. You don't get medals for what i did, seeing as the reports of them don't ever see the light of day. It's a big war, stop trying to dig up evidence to confirm your bias.
BS!! I know plenty of people in black projects, like the stealth fighter and stealth bomber programs in Nevada, who were automatically promoted and given awards & medals all the time. The fitness reports were 95% blank, stating simply that the individual is occupying a selectively-manned position. The commander's signatures were all that were needed to push the awards to the "approved" pile. So don't give us this "what I did was so secret we couldn't tell personnel officers what we did," smoke and mirrors!
Maybe that's the story they gave you for not giving you awards and decs so you wouldn't feel bad about being left out?!!?!?!?
-
Q, you really can't expect a "gov't-paid thug" to report violations of international treaties and the US Constitution to his chain of command when he doesn't even know his CO's name!! :rofl:
BS!! I know plenty of people in black projects, like the stealth fighter and stealth bomber programs in Nevada, who were automatically promoted and given awards & medals all the time. The fitness reports were 95% blank, stating simply that the individual is occupying a selectively-manned position. The commander's signatures were all that were needed to push the awards to the "approved" pile. So don't give us this "what I did was so secret we couldn't tell personnel officers what we did," smoke and mirrors!
Maybe that's the story they gave you for not giving you awards and decs so you wouldn't feel bad about being left out?!!?!?!?
not much human interaction when you drop a bomb
like i said, confirm your bias in whatever ways you want it doesn't change the argument.
-
like i said, confirm your bias in whatever ways you want it doesn't change the argument.
Whatever the f**k that means .... :sleeping:
-
Whatever the f**k that means .... :sleeping:
it means you're a coward that can't actually defend your position without using any number of fallacies.
-
it means you're a coward that can't actually defend your position without using any number of fallacies.
You can't answer questions about your position when asked, so you have no room to judge anyone else on here.
Still waiting on proof there are Christian Terrorists causing genocide in central Africa ...... :geekdanc:
-
You can't answer questions about your position when asked, so you have no room to judge anyone else on here.
Still waiting on proof there are Christian Terrorists causing genocide in central Africa ......
as long as you still maintain ignorance of what has been already shown to you there's really no point. to you, being the majority makes them right and being the minority makes them terrorists.
-
as long as you still maintain ignorance of what has been already shown to you there's really no point. to you, being the majority makes them right and being the minority makes them terrorists.
I get it. You can't answer my question because your comment was 100% BS.
Just admit it instead of trying to cover up for your bogus posts. Obviously you think you are the only one here with the so-called courage to speak the truth, when in fact you are making up lies about Christians for some personal bias you have.
Yeah, I think we all see it.
Stop acting so judgmental of the nation and those who defend it on here. You already lost this debate when I proved you are just making crap up.
I'm through with you. Have a nice evening.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/L1PDYNP.jpg)
-
I get it. You can't answer my question because you comment was 100% BS.
Just admit it instead of trying to cover up for your bogus posts. Obviously you think you are the only one here with the so-called courage to speak the truth, when in fact you are making up lies about Christians for some personal bias you have.
Yeah, I think we all see it.
Stop acting so judgmental of the nation and those who defend it on here. You've already lost this debate when I proved you are just making crap up.
I'm through with you. Have a nice evening.
more strawmen and complete denial of the truth. You are a good obedient citizen worthy of serving in the Sturmabteilung. Defend the fatherland faithfully and never question the government narrative.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vpIvJBaphy8/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Damn you all make my brain hurt
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vpIvJBaphy8/maxresdefault.jpg)
Claude Akins?