Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

[DarkFury]

No I never said religion. I said all countries that back or harbor terrorists.

Well then, I'm glad you managed to tell the difference between the two.

I have no problem banning any country that has sent us terrorists.

Neither do I.

My list would include the Saudis.

 

[theHawk]

Also institute a complete travel and immigration ban against all Muslims, regardless of country of origin or citizenship, although we should certainly allow them to fly out of the US.

Comments like this highlight what I mean when I say pseudocons only love the Constitution when it is convenient to their aims. Otherwise, you tards stand for everything AGAINST our American ideals.

The constitution allows us to control who we allow into our country. That is why the President is allowed to make any restrictions he wants. You have no idea what American ideals are.

 

[depotoo]

Do we have laws against eating halal, praying to Mecca, celebrating Ramadan? No, they don't break US law.

Actually, if they wish to come here they must follow US law, not sharia. Islam is not simply a religion, it is much more. They are welcome to practice the religion, without the laws of sharia. attached

You remove the sharia law portion of Islam, as that is not compatible with the US Constitutional laws.

Have the courts rule Islam is not a religion but is instead a criminal group.

Not very likely. And it would be very disturbing if they did, suddenly branding over a billion people as members of a criminal enterprise.

No sir.

Banning people from this country based on their religion is also "not compatible" with US Constitutional laws.

Can't you see that?

So they can't eat halal? They can't pray facing Mecca? They can't celebrate Ramadan?

 

[theHawk]

You remove the sharia law portion of Islam, as that is not compatible with the US Constitutional laws.

Have the courts rule Islam is not a religion but is instead a criminal group.

Not very likely. And it would be very disturbing if they did, suddenly branding over a billion people as members of a criminal enterprise.

No sir.

Banning people from this country based on their religion is also "not compatible" with US Constitutional laws.

Can't you see that?

It wouldn't be based on their religion, it's based on the danger they present.

 

[Ame®icano]

Video

Umm sweetie, just because we're in the middle of a terrorist attack doesn't mean you're allowed to Islamophobic

 

[Coyote]

Also institute a complete travel and immigration ban against all Muslims, regardless of country of origin or citizenship, although we should certainly allow them to fly out of the US.

Comments like this highlight what I mean when I say pseudocons only love the Constitution when it is convenient to their aims. Otherwise, you tards stand for everything AGAINST our American ideals.

The constitution allows us to control who we allow into our country. That is why the President is allowed to make any restrictions he wants. You have no idea what American ideals are.

Actually...he can't make "any restrictions" he wants.

 

[Coyote]

Also institute a complete travel and immigration ban against all Muslims, regardless of country of origin or citizenship, although we should certainly allow them to fly out of the US.

Comments like this highlight what I mean when I say pseudocons only love the Constitution when it is convenient to their aims. Otherwise, you tards stand for everything AGAINST our American ideals.

The constitution allows us to control who we allow into our country. That is why the President is allowed to make any restrictions he wants. You have no idea what American ideals are.

Actually...he can't make "any restrictions" he wants.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Support Islamic terrorism or be called a bigot.

My goodness, you are stupid.

Wrong. What makes you bigots is your willful and deliberate refusal to separate the majority of Muslims from the terrorists.

According to PEW the overwhelming majority of Muslims (90%+) are homophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, theocrats why do you support the largest hate group on the planet?

I notice you didn't provide a link to that poll.

Homosexuality is legal in these 10 Muslim countries

In America, Muslims Are More Likely to Support Gay Marriage Than Evangelical Christians

On homosexuality the overwhelming majority of Muslims view homosexuality as a sin:

As do the overwhelming majority of Evangelical Christians.

Notice you have to split up Christians by denomination you stupid fuck, the majority of Christians support gay marriage, period, full stop.

A lie. Your own link shows they are in the minority.

Lying scum!


A survey of attitudes has found that the populations of nearly all predominantly Muslim countries hold a negative attitude toward Jews. The Pew Research Center’s survey, which was carried out in mid-2009 in 25 countries, found that 98 percent of Lebanese, 97 percent of Jordanians and Palestinians and 95 percent of Egyptians hold an unfavorable view of Jews. However, only 35 percent of Israeli Arabs said they disliked Jews. In Turkey, the figure jumped from 32 percent in 2004 to 73 percent in 2009.

Negative views of Jews were also widespread in the predominantly Muslim countries of Asia. In Pakistan, 78 percent expressed unfavorable opinions, and in Indonesia – the largest Muslim country in the world – 74 percent. Among Nigerians, overall views were split, but opinions divided sharply along religious lines. Sixty percent of Muslims in Nigeria had an unfavorable view of Jews, compared with only 28 percent of Christians.

Overwhelmingly negative attitudes toward Jews in Islamic countries :: World Jewish Congress

And here's another interesting poll result from your link:

Huge percentages say that suicide bombings can be justified:


Muslim Views on Suicide Bombing

 

[Coyote]

Do we have laws against eating halal, praying to Mecca, celebrating Ramadan? No, they don't break US law.

Actually, if they wish to come here they must follow US law, not sharia. Islam is not simply a religion, it is much more. They are welcome to practice the religion, without the laws of sharia. attached

You remove the sharia law portion of Islam, as that is not compatible with the US Constitutional laws.

Not very likely. And it would be very disturbing if they did, suddenly branding over a billion people as members of a criminal enterprise.

No sir.

Banning people from this country based on their religion is also "not compatible" with US Constitutional laws.

Can't you see that?

So they can't eat halal? They can't pray facing Mecca? They can't celebrate Ramadan?

You said they can't practice Sharia law. That IS part of Sharia law.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Also institute a complete travel and immigration ban against all Muslims, regardless of country of origin or citizenship, although we should certainly allow them to fly out of the US.

Comments like this highlight what I mean when I say pseudocons only love the Constitution when it is convenient to their aims. Otherwise, you tards stand for everything AGAINST our American ideals.

The constitution allows us to control who we allow into our country. That is why the President is allowed to make any restrictions he wants. You have no idea what American ideals are.

Actually...he can't make "any restrictions" he wants.

Actually a blanket ban on Muslim immigration is perfectly Constitutional:
In other contexts, regulations of speech based on content or viewpoint are presumptively invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, being evaluated using the "most exacting scrutiny."[63]Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has explicitly upheld viewpoint-discriminatory statutes in the context of immigration law, though its statements about the free speech rights of aliens have been "various and contradictory."[64] The constitutionality of the 1903 Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams.[65] The court concluded that Congress "possesses the plenary power to exclude aliens on whatever ground [it] deems fit."[66] Similarly, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Supreme Court cited Congress's plenary power over immigration laws as the basis for applying an extremely deferential standard of review to the statutory exclusion of communist aliens from the United States.[67] No ideological naturalization restriction has been overturned on First Amendment grounds.

Ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law - Wikipedia

 

[g5000]

The simple fact is that Muslims are bearing 90 percent of the brunt of terrorism. Bigots deliberately blind themselves to this fact because it doesn't fit the anti-Muslim narrative being fed to them by their puppet masters through their propaganda outlets.

That's why they start topics about an attack in London, but not a peep from them about a much, much bigger attack in Kabul.

It's all about the confirmation bias.

 

[Slyhunter]

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwhelmed by huge numbers of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

You have precisely diagnosed the problem.

And yet I see some liberals on this board wanting to take the European approach to immigration. Just look at how that's turning out thus far. Instilling quotas would ensure that a country could vet asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants properly. Trump's travel ban, regardless of what if you think its a "Muslim ban" or not is what I see as an attempt to do just that. However, some believe that we are being bigoted and intolerant if we do.

I got some simple advice as a brash young teenager "don't bite off more than you can chew."

Pardon me...my mouth is full and I'm having trouble chewing....burp...that's better

I don't believe in unlimited immigration either. But, in reality we take in VERY few refugees - a fraction of what other countries have to contend with yet we have more resources and space to deal with it. So I'm not concerned that we'll be over run faster than we can assimilate. I support it, as long as they are well vetted and within our capacity to integrate. And part of that reason is also, because our actions have in part led to the disintegration of those countries - we bear some responsibility for the refugee situation that other countries - less well equipt then we are, are having to bear the brunt of.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

The simple fact is that Muslims are bearing 90 percent of the brunt of terrorism.

Good, 90% of Muslims are homophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, theocrats. 2/3 of British Muslims would aid terrorists:

Two thirds of British Muslims would not give police terror tip-offs | UK | News | Express.co.uk

 

[Slyhunter]

I'm not the one shivering under my bed....no, scratch that.....shivering and looking for muslim terrorists under my bed.

So, THAT'S why you don't care how many innocent people have to die as long as it isn't you.

That makes you sound so very brave.

Ah. The usual Appeal to Emotion fallacy so popular with rubes and demagogues.


DOOOOMMMM!!

Hey! You are four times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a terrorist. And many thousands more likely to be killed by a friend or relative. Better cancel your Thanksgiving plans!

Using your own TardLogic, you should never leave the house, pants shitter!

You bigots need to man up and walk upright.

Support Islamic terrorism or be called a bigot.

My goodness, you are stupid.

Wrong. What makes you bigots is your willful and deliberate refusal to separate the majority of Muslims from the terrorists.

Who the fuck do you think the Muslim refugees are fleeing, you unbelievably stupid idiot? They hate the terrorists more than you do, and have better reasons than you ignorant fucks do.

They would also be an excellent source of intel on the terrorists. So your pants shitting bigotry is self-defeating.

Then why don't they turn them in when they know who the terrorists are?

 

[depotoo]

I see it as part of the religion, as it doesn't conflict with our laws. Better put, anything within sharia that conflicts with US law should not be allowed.

Do we have laws against eating halal, praying to Mecca, celebrating Ramadan? No, they don't break US law.

Actually, if they wish to come here they must follow US law, not sharia. Islam is not simply a religion, it is much more. They are welcome to practice the religion, without the laws of sharia. attached

You remove the sharia law portion of Islam, as that is not compatible with the US Constitutional laws.

Banning people from this country based on their religion is also "not compatible" with US Constitutional laws.

Can't you see that?

So they can't eat halal? They can't pray facing Mecca? They can't celebrate Ramadan?

You said they can't practice Sharia law. That IS part of Sharia law.

 

[Slyhunter]

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwhelmed by huge numbers of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

You have precisely diagnosed the problem.

And yet I see some liberals on this board wanting to take the European approach to immigration. Just look at how that's turning out thus far. Instilling quotas would ensure that a country could vet asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants properly. Trump's travel ban, regardless of what if you think its a "Muslim ban" or not is what I see as an attempt to do just that. However, some believe that we are being bigoted and intolerant if we do.

I got some simple advice as a brash young teenager "don't bite off more than you can chew."

Pardon me...my mouth is full and I'm having trouble chewing....burp...that's better

I don't believe in unlimited immigration either. But, in reality we take in VERY few refugees - a fraction of what other countries have to contend with yet we have more resources and space to deal with it. So I'm not concerned that we'll be over run faster than we can assimilate. I support it, as long as they are well vetted and within our capacity to integrate. And part of that reason is also, because our actions have in part led to the disintegration of those countries - we bear some responsibility for the refugee situation that other countries - less well equipt then we are, are having to bear the brunt of.

What would be the harm of taking none for five years?

Because 5 years can mean death for some of those people.

Bringing them here could mean death to some of our people.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

I'm not the one shivering under my bed....no, scratch that.....shivering and looking for muslim terrorists under my bed.

So, THAT'S why you don't care how many innocent people have to die as long as it isn't you.

That makes you sound so very brave.

Ah. The usual Appeal to Emotion fallacy so popular with rubes and demagogues.


DOOOOMMMM!!

Hey! You are four times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a terrorist. And many thousands more likely to be killed by a friend or relative. Better cancel your Thanksgiving plans!

Using your own TardLogic, you should never leave the house, pants shitter!

You bigots need to man up and walk upright.

Support Islamic terrorism or be called a bigot.

My goodness, you are stupid.

Wrong. What makes you bigots is your willful and deliberate refusal to separate the majority of Muslims from the terrorists.

Who the fuck do you think the Muslim refugees are fleeing, you unbelievably stupid idiot? They hate the terrorists more than you do, and have better reasons than you ignorant fucks do.

They would also be an excellent source of intel on the terrorists. So your pants shitting bigotry is self-defeating.

Then why don't they turn them in when they know who the terrorists are?

Two thirds of British Muslims would not give police terror tip-offs | UK | News | Express.co.uk

 

[frigidweirdo]

Details are sketchy but multiple reports claim some number of people have been hit by a van on the London Bridge. But this is the new normal, right? Just get used to it.

Well... what's normal?

US war mongering is normal. How many Islamic countries have seen US bombs? Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Pakistan... and that's just recently, go back to WW2 and you're going to have to increase this.

But it's typical of the right to create conditions to be tough on things, and then bitch and moan about those conditions in order to get rid of things they don't like.

Get rid of Islam? Well every single person who wants to get rid of Islam wants to get rid of the US Constitution too.

 

[Coyote]

I see it as part of the religion, as it doesn't conflict with our laws. Better put, anything within sharia that conflicts with US law should not be allowed.

Do we have laws against eating halal, praying to Mecca, celebrating Ramadan? No, they don't break US law.

Actually, if they wish to come here they must follow US law, not sharia. Islam is not simply a religion, it is much more. They are welcome to practice the religion, without the laws of sharia. attached

Banning people from this country based on their religion is also "not compatible" with US Constitutional laws.

Can't you see that?

So they can't eat halal? They can't pray facing Mecca? They can't celebrate Ramadan?

You said they can't practice Sharia law. That IS part of Sharia law.

It's all part of Sharia but - most Muslims, like most Christians or Jews don't follow every part of their religious law literally.
Basically, Muslim immigrants should be welcomed the same as any other immigrant - free to follow the faith of their choice, as long as they follow the law of the land. And that works. Right?

 

[Slyhunter]

You remove the sharia law portion of Islam, as that is not compatible with the US Constitutional laws.

Have the courts rule Islam is not a religion but is instead a criminal group.

Not very likely. And it would be very disturbing if they did, suddenly branding over a billion people as members of a criminal enterprise.

No sir.

Banning people from this country based on their religion is also "not compatible" with US Constitutional laws.

Can't you see that?

Banning people from countries know to harbor terrorists are not.

No, but you're insisting on banning an entire religion. Big difference.

Can we ban Pastafarians?
What about creating a religion of those who worship money? Their places of worship would be banks which would make them tax exempt.