How YOU should act now.

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

We have an airport security system that checks for bottled liquids, as well as sharp objects such as box cutter knives, with random pat downs. It's a tested, as well as proven very effective security system that resulted out of and in response to 9-11. So what possible threat do you think they pose, that wasn't just rendered null and void by my argument? Crime violence is very different argument from an ideology based on hatred towards all those who don't share in their Muslim faith. How many violent acts can you provide proof of occurring out of Chicago, that involved the killing through explosives or other means to target thousands of innocent civilians REGARDLESS of the color of their skin? Are you capable of telling the difference between an isolated killing of an individual, with a well organized plan stemming from an ideological belief?

Now, I would like you to answer my question that was posed to you. This reflects more accurately with regard to the situation we are now being faced with, which is during a time of war. Can you provide me proof to where the United States had an open border policy towards a nation [which could be changed to mean region in our case] that was hostile towards us allowing immigrants from the empire of the sun to become citizens of the United States? Now this is what I consider to be a more valid argument, not "street crime".

To answer your question... I'm not proposing an open border solution. I support reforms to our immigration process including e-verify and better visa tracking. I also support makin our vetting process as secure as possible. Nothing will ever be 100%, that is not a realistic expectation. Neither are your TSA security checks

You keep dodging the point but we don't need to beat a dead horse. The airport/Indiana scenario I posed goes to how far can we protect ourselves against the risk of crime by groups that pose a statistical higher risk. Discriminating against Muslims from Syria is similar to discriminating against black males from Chicago as they both statistically pose a high crime risk. The only difference is that our laws protect poor blacks and all of groups in this country from discrimination. You can make the argument that our laws don't provide the same protections for foreigners but the principle behind the law stays true. That's my point.

There is no threat that would require African Americans to be singled out at an airport. You are giving an example of street crime, which is in a vastly different element from an religious ideology. It's not even remotely in the same category, yet you are using it as if the two are somehow the same ... they are not. Security checkpoints at airports which screen bagages for liquids, tooth paste tube which can be used for plastic explosive, random pat downs that check for sharp objects. Your best scenario has been nullified, there is no threat example that you could name to even justify your analogy of Chicago street crime as somehow being equivalent to a terrorist planned bombing. You can not be serious.

The argument of not allowing refugees that originate from a known highly terrorist activity region, is the use of common sense backs up historically. Again, (1) during a time of war when have we as a nation historically allowed immigrants to come over from the empire of the sun, a known nation with hostile intentions against the United States? You can't even answer that question and it has everything to do with this situation, NOT RACISM.

(2) Are you suggesting that NO nation has the ability to make decisions that pertain to enforcing their own borders?

You only call it racism if that's what you want to make the argument, however I said
(3) immigrants (especially including muslims) from other regions or nations would be allowed to enter the United States

Those three points means the case is not racist in nature. Just like Japan, a known hostile enemy during Workd War II, the United States would be suspending immigration and civilian travel between those two nations. All diplomats from Japan that had embassies or foreign interests within the United States was ordered to return back to their nation of origin, while all forms of diplomacy ceased. That is if you knew anything at all concerning our nation's history and events that transpired from our government in Washington DC following the Japanese led attack on Pearl Harbor. Was that DISCRIMINATION to suspend relations with that country and order their representative to return back to Japan, cutting off all forms of ties ... including diplomatic ties to Japan? It was not deemed racism then, and suspending travel and immigration passage from known hostile terrorist threat regions to our nation is not racism now. Its border enforcement to protect our citizens from attack.

Our president has been given the responsibility to defend this nation from ALL threats foreign and domestic to this nation. It's his duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the citizens of this country from ALL forms of threats that can lead to a possible attack.

You seem like an intelligent person but at this point you are either being bullish in your argument or i'm giving your abilities to comprehend and reason too much credit. I am not speaking about racism or ideology, i'm talking quite simply about risk. You say muslims from "high risk" regions should be banned from the US, and I say that rationale falls in line with my argument of banning black males from Chicago from Indiana or from businesses because they statistically pose more of a risk. Both come down to the concept of making discriminatory characterizations, which has been disenvowed by our country decades ago.

Your question about history is loaded as there is not a time in history that we can compare to our current situation. A close example could point to Vietnam where we resettled the greater portion of 130,000 Vietnamese in the mid to late 70's. However, we are not at war with another country, we are fighting Isis, Terrorist thugs, which you mistakenly simulate to Islam. If this is an ideologically war against islam then we have millions of the enemy already in our country. The war is against terrorists, not muslims. Yes they rationalize their violence and recruit by distorting the Islamic religion, but for us to react by banning and discriminating against all muslims or their ideology is a very small minded response.

For the record, i'm not saying bring them all over... I'm in support of helping them resettle in their own country, creating safe zones, assisting with rebuilding and opportunity etc etc etc. For the refugees that we do take, I am all for detailed vetting and background checks. Many of these Syrian refugee's are christians, women, children, elderly etc etc. Their biggest crime was being born in the wrong area which is now being destroyed by not only their own countrymen, but also as a reaction to what our country has done over seas. If you feel that we have no responsibility to do what we can to help, then frankly, I think you need help.

You simply dont have an understanding of the ideological threat that we face beyond what the news media has informed you of. I on the other hand, have served overseas where marines have died as a result of an extremist following their ideological faith. We are at war with an ideological belief, not a clear nation nor a known enemy you can pick out from among a group of civilians. Their influence has extended to the hearts and minds of women as well as children. When such an influence of belief takes hold over various age groups, while a strong group of terrorists still have a foothold of violence in a specified region, you don't simply open a door to anyone on the belief they are nothing more than just civilians seeking asylum, and that you can quite simply pick out and identify a civilian from among them. US soldiers are often finding themselves involved in a war where there is no clear distinction nor certainty that the individual you are conversing with is a militant, civilian, or extremist sympathizer. Our nation is very much at war with an enemy who's interpretation of their Koran is to kill and cleanse that region of those who don't accept or willing o follow THEIR specific Islamic religion. How can anyone isolated cozy within their own borders have an understanding of the kind of influential threat we face, unless they find themselves having to face such an environment? Many who stand in opposition to such security concerns just don't have the comprehension or experience of what it's like to face such an twisted religious influence, who has proven itself to intellectually infiltrate and kill innocent women and children as a testament to their commitment of that belief. Trying to allow what may be innocent civilians in a region we don't have complete control over and where known violent terrorists have a strong foothold, is putting our nation at risk from those militants who would take advantage of such efforts. You can't base your decisions on emotions. We don't even have boots on the ground with the experience and intelligence to judge a situation, that are committed to know what we are in fact walking ourselves into. If you want to lay blame on someone, put that on Obama who would rather use anyone (even the UN) over our own troops. If Obama wants to use foreign troops, then allow him to put his faith and trust on those troops as well as involve the United Nations to stabilize the region. He owns that mess you are talking about. After how he has handled foreign conflicts, and based on the knowledge of the kind of ideology we are facing, I don't trust his judgment regarding this policy. I just believe our perceptions on this subject are vastly different based on our own varied personal experience and knowledge that guides our particular point of view.

I've been to Turkey, went there just over a year ago, I've spoken to Syrian refugees and heard many stories and experiences. Ive seen the tears in their eyes as they genuinely fear for their lives and the lives of their family that they are separated from. My old business partner is a Muslim from Pakistan and we used to have very deep discussions about the ideology of Islam. I'm not cozy in my borders getting spoon fed by the media as you falsely assume. The side of Islam that I've seen and been exposed to is very different than what you portray, it is very different from what you and the media say Isis follows. The terrorist are whackos. They are glorified gangsters. They live in a desperate testosterone filled culture dominated by guns and power. They feed on the weak minded and yes they use ideology to manipulate their followers, but many just get off on fucking shit up. Jihadists are to Islam as violent KKK members are to Christianity.

I'm not opposed to tight measures placed on refugees and immigrates at times of war and civil unrest. I am opposed to much of the hateful rhetoric that is being used as of late, and the mischaracterization of Islam that people like you used to divide and demonize a very large group of peaceful people.

I'm not mischaracterizing at all. I'm stating a view of particular Muslim extremists and how they perceive the Koran through the interpretation of their faith. Again, have I spoken against all Muslims or specifically to a particular group of extremists in my posts? Let's be honest and not try to misrepresent my response with regard to Muslima. I did not, and have not demonized a large group of people. I HAVE spoken the reality of what exists in the mindset of ideological extremists. If we had complete military control over that region and these extremists (note again I'm referring to terrorists not to all Muslims) did not have a foothold, we would be having a different discussion and I would approve those that want to come to the United States. With each post I've made my concerns and those conditions very clear, they will not change. We need tighter borders, and when it comes to war our nation has historically never allowed immigrants from a nation that is currently engaged in a war with the United States. We closed our borders to them. You may have to familiarize yourself with those events during World War II, as we are still at war with in a region that has terrorists strongholds. Unless of course, you have are able to prove me historically inaccurate in my statement, and we allowed Japanese immigrants to travel here.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

And what makes you think an illegal immigrant would risk a felines and deportation by trying to place an illegal vote?

They BREAK THE LAW.

They've already proven that.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

You only believe that because the people telling you this are the SAME people who told us endlessly that Trump didn't have a chance.

Sorry, I don't believe Hillary won the popular vote

Nor do I.

same here but on the other hand who cares

trump won the electoral vote making him the next prezbo

 

[Slade3200]

To answer your question... I'm not proposing an open border solution. I support reforms to our immigration process including e-verify and better visa tracking. I also support makin our vetting process as secure as possible. Nothing will ever be 100%, that is not a realistic expectation. Neither are your TSA security checks

You keep dodging the point but we don't need to beat a dead horse. The airport/Indiana scenario I posed goes to how far can we protect ourselves against the risk of crime by groups that pose a statistical higher risk. Discriminating against Muslims from Syria is similar to discriminating against black males from Chicago as they both statistically pose a high crime risk. The only difference is that our laws protect poor blacks and all of groups in this country from discrimination. You can make the argument that our laws don't provide the same protections for foreigners but the principle behind the law stays true. That's my point.

There is no threat that would require African Americans to be singled out at an airport. You are giving an example of street crime, which is in a vastly different element from an religious ideology. It's not even remotely in the same category, yet you are using it as if the two are somehow the same ... they are not. Security checkpoints at airports which screen bagages for liquids, tooth paste tube which can be used for plastic explosive, random pat downs that check for sharp objects. Your best scenario has been nullified, there is no threat example that you could name to even justify your analogy of Chicago street crime as somehow being equivalent to a terrorist planned bombing. You can not be serious.

The argument of not allowing refugees that originate from a known highly terrorist activity region, is the use of common sense backs up historically. Again, (1) during a time of war when have we as a nation historically allowed immigrants to come over from the empire of the sun, a known nation with hostile intentions against the United States? You can't even answer that question and it has everything to do with this situation, NOT RACISM.

(2) Are you suggesting that NO nation has the ability to make decisions that pertain to enforcing their own borders?

You only call it racism if that's what you want to make the argument, however I said
(3) immigrants (especially including muslims) from other regions or nations would be allowed to enter the United States

Those three points means the case is not racist in nature. Just like Japan, a known hostile enemy during Workd War II, the United States would be suspending immigration and civilian travel between those two nations. All diplomats from Japan that had embassies or foreign interests within the United States was ordered to return back to their nation of origin, while all forms of diplomacy ceased. That is if you knew anything at all concerning our nation's history and events that transpired from our government in Washington DC following the Japanese led attack on Pearl Harbor. Was that DISCRIMINATION to suspend relations with that country and order their representative to return back to Japan, cutting off all forms of ties ... including diplomatic ties to Japan? It was not deemed racism then, and suspending travel and immigration passage from known hostile terrorist threat regions to our nation is not racism now. Its border enforcement to protect our citizens from attack.

Our president has been given the responsibility to defend this nation from ALL threats foreign and domestic to this nation. It's his duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the citizens of this country from ALL forms of threats that can lead to a possible attack.

You seem like an intelligent person but at this point you are either being bullish in your argument or i'm giving your abilities to comprehend and reason too much credit. I am not speaking about racism or ideology, i'm talking quite simply about risk. You say muslims from "high risk" regions should be banned from the US, and I say that rationale falls in line with my argument of banning black males from Chicago from Indiana or from businesses because they statistically pose more of a risk. Both come down to the concept of making discriminatory characterizations, which has been disenvowed by our country decades ago.

Your question about history is loaded as there is not a time in history that we can compare to our current situation. A close example could point to Vietnam where we resettled the greater portion of 130,000 Vietnamese in the mid to late 70's. However, we are not at war with another country, we are fighting Isis, Terrorist thugs, which you mistakenly simulate to Islam. If this is an ideologically war against islam then we have millions of the enemy already in our country. The war is against terrorists, not muslims. Yes they rationalize their violence and recruit by distorting the Islamic religion, but for us to react by banning and discriminating against all muslims or their ideology is a very small minded response.

For the record, i'm not saying bring them all over... I'm in support of helping them resettle in their own country, creating safe zones, assisting with rebuilding and opportunity etc etc etc. For the refugees that we do take, I am all for detailed vetting and background checks. Many of these Syrian refugee's are christians, women, children, elderly etc etc. Their biggest crime was being born in the wrong area which is now being destroyed by not only their own countrymen, but also as a reaction to what our country has done over seas. If you feel that we have no responsibility to do what we can to help, then frankly, I think you need help.

You simply dont have an understanding of the ideological threat that we face beyond what the news media has informed you of. I on the other hand, have served overseas where marines have died as a result of an extremist following their ideological faith. We are at war with an ideological belief, not a clear nation nor a known enemy you can pick out from among a group of civilians. Their influence has extended to the hearts and minds of women as well as children. When such an influence of belief takes hold over various age groups, while a strong group of terrorists still have a foothold of violence in a specified region, you don't simply open a door to anyone on the belief they are nothing more than just civilians seeking asylum, and that you can quite simply pick out and identify a civilian from among them. US soldiers are often finding themselves involved in a war where there is no clear distinction nor certainty that the individual you are conversing with is a militant, civilian, or extremist sympathizer. Our nation is very much at war with an enemy who's interpretation of their Koran is to kill and cleanse that region of those who don't accept or willing o follow THEIR specific Islamic religion. How can anyone isolated cozy within their own borders have an understanding of the kind of influential threat we face, unless they find themselves having to face such an environment? Many who stand in opposition to such security concerns just don't have the comprehension or experience of what it's like to face such an twisted religious influence, who has proven itself to intellectually infiltrate and kill innocent women and children as a testament to their commitment of that belief. Trying to allow what may be innocent civilians in a region we don't have complete control over and where known violent terrorists have a strong foothold, is putting our nation at risk from those militants who would take advantage of such efforts. You can't base your decisions on emotions. We don't even have boots on the ground with the experience and intelligence to judge a situation, that are committed to know what we are in fact walking ourselves into. If you want to lay blame on someone, put that on Obama who would rather use anyone (even the UN) over our own troops. If Obama wants to use foreign troops, then allow him to put his faith and trust on those troops as well as involve the United Nations to stabilize the region. He owns that mess you are talking about. After how he has handled foreign conflicts, and based on the knowledge of the kind of ideology we are facing, I don't trust his judgment regarding this policy. I just believe our perceptions on this subject are vastly different based on our own varied personal experience and knowledge that guides our particular point of view.

I've been to Turkey, went there just over a year ago, I've spoken to Syrian refugees and heard many stories and experiences. Ive seen the tears in their eyes as they genuinely fear for their lives and the lives of their family that they are separated from. My old business partner is a Muslim from Pakistan and we used to have very deep discussions about the ideology of Islam. I'm not cozy in my borders getting spoon fed by the media as you falsely assume. The side of Islam that I've seen and been exposed to is very different than what you portray, it is very different from what you and the media say Isis follows. The terrorist are whackos. They are glorified gangsters. They live in a desperate testosterone filled culture dominated by guns and power. They feed on the weak minded and yes they use ideology to manipulate their followers, but many just get off on fucking shit up. Jihadists are to Islam as violent KKK members are to Christianity.

I'm not opposed to tight measures placed on refugees and immigrates at times of war and civil unrest. I am opposed to much of the hateful rhetoric that is being used as of late, and the mischaracterization of Islam that people like you used to divide and demonize a very large group of peaceful people.

I'm not mischaracterizing at all. I'm stating a view of particular Muslim extremists and how they perceive the Koran through the interpretation of their faith. Again, have I spoken against all Muslims or specifically to a particular group of extremists in my posts? Let's be honest and not try to misrepresent my response with regard to Muslima. I did not, and have not demonized a large group of people. I HAVE spoken the reality of what exists in the mindset of ideological extremists. If we had complete military control over that region and these extremists (note again I'm referring to terrorists not to all Muslims) did not have a foothold, we would be having a different discussion and I would approve those that want to come to the United States. With each post I've made my concerns and those conditions very clear, they will not change. We need tighter borders, and when it comes to war our nation has historically never allowed immigrants from a nation that is currently engaged in a war with the United States. We closed our borders to them. You may have to familiarize yourself with those events during World War II, as we are still at war with in a region that has terrorists strongholds. Unless of course, you have are able to prove me historically inaccurate in my statement, and we allowed Japanese immigrants to travel here.

I already sited the 130,000 vietemease refugees we took in in the 70s and also explained how this refugee migration crisis and fight with Isis is different than any other war time situation in history. You being ex military should understand this difference. What you don't seem to realize is the difference between the jihadist ideology and peace loving Muslims. By simply saying that jihadists are extreme Muslims and their terrorist actions are all based on an interpretation of the Koran, it is just not accurate, its offensive, and it associates jihadists with Muslims that we should be reaching out to and working with to denounce these guys. You are talking of generations of impoverished warriors who have been fighting for land and against those countries, like ours, that have been oppressing them. As I said before, these thugs are killing In the name of Allah, then raping little boys??? No, I do not believe that god and religion is in the core of the hearts of these fucktards.

 

[Slade3200]

And what makes you think an illegal immigrant would risk a felines and deportation by trying to place an illegal vote?

They BREAK THE LAW.

They've already proven that.

Is that why they run around raping and murdering our citizens? I think I'm starting to understand how your warped little mind is working

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And what makes you think an illegal immigrant would risk a felines and deportation by trying to place an illegal vote?

They BREAK THE LAW.

They've already proven that.

Is that why they run around raping and murdering our citizens? I think I'm starting to understand how your warped little mind is working

What kind of sicko resorts to adding their own interpretative view of someone who doesn't happen to indulge in their ideological view? "Running around raping our citizens" ... or "raping little boys" with respect to your response towards my post ... really? Obviously if you feel you must resort to this to try and "label" an individual you don't agree with, then perhaps you need to spend a little more time educating yourself a little better on the issues, before making such rash judgments and statements. You're looking no different than any other liberal I've come across.

 

[Slade3200]

And what makes you think an illegal immigrant would risk a felines and deportation by trying to place an illegal vote?

They BREAK THE LAW.

They've already proven that.

Is that why they run around raping and murdering our citizens? I think I'm starting to understand how your warped little mind is working

What kind of sicko resorts to adding their own interpretative view of someone who doesn't happen to indulge in their ideological view? "Running around raping our citizens" ... or "raping little boys" with respect to your response towards my post ... really? Obviously if you feel you must resort to this to try and "label" an individual you don't agree with, then perhaps you need to spend a little more time educating yourself a little better on the issues, before making such rash judgments and statements. You're looking no different than any other liberal I've come across.

The underground homosexuality, rape prisons, and child molestation that Isis camps engage in is not a mystery. To me it sounds like you present Isis and Jihadists as extreme muslims that follow the Koran and interpret its teachings as a directive to fight against non-believers. You present their fight as religion and ideology driven. While I do not deny the association of religious indoctrination within groups like Isis, I think it is not accurately portrayed by people like you. And there is more focus on them being a part of islam than the fact that they have harbored years and years of a disgusting and destructive culture. It's why I hate the term yall insist on using, islamic extremists... It is inflammatory and unnecessary. You can call them Jihadist Terrorist and then go full force trying to demonize the people to join that gang. Yall are painting Islam and Isis way too close to each other and many can't see the lines that separate them because of the rhetoric.

Boys of Pleasure: Sexual abuse of children betrays Isis hypocrisy

UN Condemns ISIS for Raping Teenage Boys