Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

[TemplarKormac]

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.

No I don't. I know it's a religion. Studying history will teach people that.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

No I don't. I know it's a religion. Studying history will teach people that.

So is Quetzalcoatl and their right to sacrifice virgins.
What about Dianetics, are you saying they are not a religion because they aren't in the history books?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

No I don't. I know it's a religion. Studying history will teach people that.

So is Quetzalcoatl and their right to sacrifice virgins.
What about Dianetics, are you saying they are not a religion because they aren't in the history books?

Sigh. You're being childish. I've had enough of this thread and I'm going to bed.

 

[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.

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

Actually, he can.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

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


That's the law, in black and white. You anti-American types and pro-Islamists have nothing but lies and hatred.

 

[Roudy]

At what point do we have to say "enough" and call a spade a spade? Will it be after a terrorist event that kills over 10,000, or 100,000, or perhaps, millions?

This so called "religion" is responsible for the death and suffering of millions today. How many nations does Islam have to ravage and destroy? If nothing is done, then it's only going to get worse from here. Let's not forget what 9-11 did to our airports and ability to travel freely.

It will slowly get to the point that every aspect of our lives will be affected. There will be security checkpoints at every restaurant, mall, shopping center, movie theatre, supermarket, etc. The followers of this barbaric cult are destroying our free society and turning it into a police state.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Its the result of climate change no doubt....

Global warming has baked their inbred , infantile, little brains.......

 

[Roudy]

And what if we cannot "vet" those from countries that are basically failed states, undergoing civil war, or cannot be trusted to provide us with accurate trustworthy info? Hence why the travel ban is a necessity.

 

[Roudy]

And that's been done before with the KKK.

Could you be kind enough to cite the SCOTUS case in which such reasoning was used?

There doesn't need to be a precedent. Cite the verses in the Koran, cite Muhammad's actions, then show the intolerance and violence the followers are engaging in. Slam dunk case.

 

[Roudy]

Its the result of climate change no doubt....

Global warming has baked their inbred , infantile, little brains.......

Maybe the towels on their heads are wrapped a little too tight. Who knows.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And that's been done before with the KKK.

Could you be kind enough to cite the SCOTUS case in which such reasoning was used?

There doesn't need to be a precedent. Cite the verses in the Koran, cite Muhammad's actions, then show the intolerance and violence the followers are engaging in. Slam dunk case.

Unfortunately you need a legal case, not a religious one.

 

[Roudy]

This is a Pew poll:

Do you have any idea of what Muslims do to gays in their own countries, dipshit?

 

[Roudy]

The anti-Muslim bigots are using the same tired old diversionary tactics. They want us all to bleev that all Muslims are terrorists waiting to happen.

That simply isn't true, and they willfully blind themselves to that fact by throwing up smoke and bullshit when caught without evidence to support that bogus belief.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are.....

 

[Roudy]

And that's been done before with the KKK.

Could you be kind enough to cite the SCOTUS case in which such reasoning was used?

There doesn't need to be a precedent. Cite the verses in the Koran, cite Muhammad's actions, then show the intolerance and violence the followers are engaging in. Slam dunk case.

Unfortunately you need a legal case, not a religious one.

Legally Islam should be banned.

 

[Roudy]

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.

Wake up will ya? The people being targetted and killed in Europe and the US by practitioners of this evil cult are....non Muslims! You're dismissed.

 

[Roudy]

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?

And don't forget how many people die from the flu. Much more compared to how many are killed by IslamoNazis. So therefore we shouldn't do anything and keep letting these animals kill innocent people at will, eh?

 

[Roudy]

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.

It isn't a religion if it causes people to turn into mass murdering suicidal zombies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And that's been done before with the KKK.

Could you be kind enough to cite the SCOTUS case in which such reasoning was used?

There doesn't need to be a precedent. Cite the verses in the Koran, cite Muhammad's actions, then show the intolerance and violence the followers are engaging in. Slam dunk case.

Unfortunately you need a legal case, not a religious one.

Legally Islam should be banned.

Under what laws? What legal basis under American law and jurisprudence would you have for banning followers of a particular religion from American soil? As far as I know, you don't have one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

It isn't a religion if it causes people to turn into mass murdering suicidal zombies.

Then what were the Crusaders? Are we really going to play this game?

 

[LoneLaugher]

2nd attack being reported

Gunmen at a market.

Aren't guns banned in England?

It's nutbag BINGO. "Aren't guns banned in England" for the row!

Why aren't you outraged at these attacks?

Why do you hate America?

 

[LoneLaugher]

And I don't support islamic terrorism. I don't support any terrorism. I know you just say that because it's your fear talking...I forgive you.

If you didn't support Islamic terrorism, you would not be attacking those who oppose it with every dirty little rhetorical trick in the book.

Mass murder is not enshrined in the first amendment. You are simply too utterly stupid to understand that.

"attacking"? You call a dialogue on an anonymous message board an "attack"? Oh boy.....you really need to be made of sterner stuff. You're a cream puff.

Do you really think that nobody notices how you, Coyote and the rest of your repulsive ilk never spend so much as a nanosecond expressing any disapproval at all for the actions, yet have endless time devoted to posting reams of invective against those who do?

You are even less intelligent than I imagined.

I vehemently disapprove of the actions of any and all radical Islamic terrorists.

Clear enough?