Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

[frigidweirdo]

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.

10,000 deaths a year from guns, and you have a problem only with the dozen or so dead from Terrorism..... what? How is that logical?

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

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?

Not enough.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

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.

Are you being serious?

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

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.

10,000 deaths a year from guns, and you have a problem only with the dozen or so dead from Terrorism..... what? How is that logical?

You suppprt the largest hate group on the planet, Muslims out of the west now, apologist scum off our streets, Je Suis Breivik!

 

[WEATHER53]

2.5x affirming
US trying to be politically correct did not work so now onto sterner measures

 

[DarkFury]

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?

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.

Followers of the spaghetti monster? Are they blowing up buildings? Killing homos in clubs? If so yes if not why?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

10,000 deaths a year from guns, and you have a problem only with the dozen or so dead from Terrorism..... what? How is that logical?

Don't know how to stay on topic do we.
Thousands of deaths due to Cancer and yet I can still worry about a terrorist.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

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

Banning 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, inKleindienst 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

Apologist scum off our streets!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Personally, I would locate the nearest pub and find safety there.

And they should give discounts on drinks so people can forget all this. If they run out of booze, they can send in emergency shipments.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

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.

Are you being serious?

Are you?
Any form of worshipping can be called religion.
Can we make laws against Quetzalcoatl worshipers who believe in sacrificing virgins to their God?
Just because they call it a religion doesn't make it fall under the definition of the word religion as it pertains to in the constitution.
I doubt any of our fathers considered Satanism a religion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

10,000 deaths a year from guns, and you have a problem only with the dozen or so dead from Terrorism..... what? How is that logical?

Don't know how to stay on topic do we.
Thousands of deaths due to Cancer and yet I can still worry about a terrorist.

It's part of the topic. But hey, you want to compartmentalize so that people don't actually talk about the reason why these attacks are happening.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

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.

Are you being serious?

Oh I forgot about Dianetics. We already have a religion that worships money. They think Aliens are going to scoop us off to heaven. Think they should be allowed to enslave their women and turn them into baby factories simply because it's their religion?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Are you being serious?

Are you?
Any form of worshipping can be called religion.
Can we make laws against Quetzalcoatl worshipers who believe in sacrificing virgins to their God?
Just because they call it a religion doesn't make it fall under the definition of the word religion as it pertains to in the constitution.
I doubt any of our fathers considered Satanism a religion.

Oh, but now you get to determine what is or isn't a religion?

Such arrogance.

 

[Slyhunter]

Personally, I would locate the nearest pub and find safety there.

And they should give discounts on drinks so people can forget all this. If they run out of booze, they can send in emergency shipments.

Worshipping alcohol. Lets make a religion. And then protect it like all the rest.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

10,000 deaths a year from guns, and you have a problem only with the dozen or so dead from Terrorism..... what? How is that logical?

Don't know how to stay on topic do we.
Thousands of deaths due to Cancer and yet I can still worry about a terrorist.

It's part of the topic. But hey, you want to compartmentalize so that people don't actually talk about the reason why these attacks are happening.

The reason these attacks are happening have nothing to do with whether we arm our citizens our not. Arming our citizens would simply give them the means to defend themselves in the event of an attack. But making guns illegal would not stop the terrorist.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Are you being serious?

Are you?
Any form of worshipping can be called religion.
Can we make laws against Quetzalcoatl worshipers who believe in sacrificing virgins to their God?
Just because they call it a religion doesn't make it fall under the definition of the word religion as it pertains to in the constitution.
I doubt any of our fathers considered Satanism a religion.

Oh, but now you get to determine what is or isn't a religion?

Such arrogance.

You seem to think you get to have that right.

 

[DarkFury]

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.

Are you being serious?

Are you?
Any form of worshipping can be called religion.
Can we make laws against Quetzalcoatl worshipers who believe in sacrificing virgins to their God?
Just because they call it a religion doesn't make it fall under the definition of the word religion as it pertains to in the constitution.
I doubt any of our fathers considered Satanism a religion.

We could start a religion where we sacrifice liberals to sharks or pigs or pitbulls. We could demand our right to our religious practice and Sue when we are refused. Once a year we could travel to California for our pilgrimage and practice!

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

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.

10,000 deaths a year from guns, and you have a problem only with the dozen or so dead from Terrorism..... what? How is that logical?

Don't know how to stay on topic do we.
Thousands of deaths due to Cancer and yet I can still worry about a terrorist.

It's part of the topic. But hey, you want to compartmentalize so that people don't actually talk about the reason why these attacks are happening.

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

Muslims out! Apologist
scum off our streets!

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

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.

Are you being serious?

Are you?
Any form of worshipping can be called religion.
Can we make laws against Quetzalcoatl worshipers who believe in sacrificing virgins to their God?
Just because they call it a religion doesn't make it fall under the definition of the word religion as it pertains to in the constitution.
I doubt any of our fathers considered Satanism a religion.

Oh, but now you get to determine what is or isn't a religion?

Such arrogance.

My religion demands death to pedophiles and ostracization for those who support them, Muslims worship a child rapist, Mohammad (may piss be upon him) raped children.

 

[DarkFury]

May all Muslims rest in piss!