Trump Is Right About Screening Out Muslims

[protectionist]

The Donald is a Nazi. and his followers bed-wetting Hitler youths.

You're a jerk.

 

[protectionist]

How do you prove someone is a Muslim?

1. If they say they are.

2. If the women wear head scarves.

3. If they get ruffled, when you say Mo the Pedophile was a dirtbag, thief, rapist, wife-beater, child molester, mass murderer, slaveowner, and a pathetic dumbass.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So all Muslims pose a threat to the US?

Should the US do whatever it takes to deal with anyone who is a potential threat to any American?

Wait, that would be gun owners, they're all a "potential threat" and therefore should be locked up in concentration camps.

That's basically the "logic" coming from this.

No, that's your liberal, backasswards, twisted illogic. It's just the opposite. The law-abiding, permit carrying gun owners are your PROTECTION from those who are a threat. If they would have been in the social services center in San Bernardino, or in the concert hall in Paris when the terrorists struck, the damage would have been very limited, as the terroists would have gone down immediatley, in a hail of hollow point bullets.

And you can make arguments for anything and everything. How much of a threat is the ordinary Muslim? Not really a threat at all. What are threats are radical Muslims. Yet the right is twisting everything to make out all Muslims are a threat.

You say the terrorists would have gone down straight away, but then again the terrorists in Iraq attacking fully armed US soldiers managed to kill quite a lot of people too, right?

In the UK there was a terrorist attack. Killed - zero. In the US there was a terrorist attack - killed quite a few.

How is it that guns in society didn't save those in the US?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trump's not a bigot, he's just trying really hard to get the votes of bigots by saying bigoted things.

He never said anything bigoted, Mr Bigot Card.

If I say ALL MUSLIMS should be barred from the US, I'd be implying that ALL MUSLIMS are bad, ALL MUSLIMS are a threat.

But they're not.

So what he's saying is putting something into the minds of people that ALL MUSLIMS are bad and evil and therefore we have to target Muslims.

bigot: definition of bigot in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions:"

So, Muslims hold other views, ie, based on religion, Trump is making out, falsely, that they're a threat, and then is getting people to be against Muslims.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How do you prove someone is a Muslim?

1. If they say they are.

2. If the women wear head scarves.

3. If they get ruffled, when you say Mo the Pedophile was a dirtbag, thief, rapist, wife-beater, child molester, mass murderer, slaveowner, and a pathetic dumbass.

So if they are, but say they're not, they can go into the US?

If a woman wears a headscarf, she's a Muslim?

Would you ban this woman from going to the US?

So, a male, says he's not a Muslim, can enter the US without problems then under Trump's plan?

Do you think a terrorist would admit to being a Muslim if he knew that Muslims couldn't get into the US?

Do you see how bad a plan this is by Trump?

 

[protectionist]

So all Muslims pose a threat to the US?

Should the US do whatever it takes to deal with anyone who is a potential threat to any American?

Wait, that would be gun owners, they're all a "potential threat" and therefore should be locked up in concentration camps.

That's basically the "logic" coming from this.

No, that's your liberal, backasswards, twisted illogic. It's just the opposite. The law-abiding, permit carrying gun owners are your PROTECTION from those who are a threat. If they would have been in the social services center in San Bernardino, or in the concert hall in Paris when the terrorists struck, the damage would have been very limited, as the terroists would have gone down immediatley, in a hail of hollow point bullets.

And you can make arguments for anything and everything. How much of a threat is the ordinary Muslim? Not really a threat at all. What are threats are radical Muslims. Yet the right is twisting everything to make out all Muslims are a threat.

You say the terrorists would have gone down straight away, but then again the terrorists in Iraq attacking fully armed US soldiers managed to kill quite a lot of people too, right?

In the UK there was a terrorist attack. Killed - zero. In the US there was a terrorist attack - killed quite a few.

How is it that guns in society didn't save those in the US?

FALSE! Neither "the right" or Donald Trump has ever said or inferred the slightest bit that "all Muslims are a threat" YOU are who said that.
What Trump has said is that ISIS is using the refugee migration as a Trojan Horse to get into Europe (they already have) and into the US. By blocking ALL Muslims from coming in, we thereby stop ISIS from using the migration as a way of getting in here. Simple as that.
Say all you want about terrorist attacks. turn it, twist it, spin it bounce it, whatever. If the CCW guys were in the building in Paris, the terrorists would have been shot dead quickly and over 100 lives would have been saved.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

So all Muslims pose a threat to the US?

Should the US do whatever it takes to deal with anyone who is a potential threat to any American?

Wait, that would be gun owners, they're all a "potential threat" and therefore should be locked up in concentration camps.

That's basically the "logic" coming from this.

No, that's your liberal, backasswards, twisted illogic. It's just the opposite. The law-abiding, permit carrying gun owners are your PROTECTION from those who are a threat. If they would have been in the social services center in San Bernardino, or in the concert hall in Paris when the terrorists struck, the damage would have been very limited, as the terroists would have gone down immediatley, in a hail of hollow point bullets.

And you can make arguments for anything and everything. How much of a threat is the ordinary Muslim? Not really a threat at all. What are threats are radical Muslims. Yet the right is twisting everything to make out all Muslims are a threat.

You say the terrorists would have gone down straight away, but then again the terrorists in Iraq attacking fully armed US soldiers managed to kill quite a lot of people too, right?

In the UK there was a terrorist attack. Killed - zero. In the US there was a terrorist attack - killed quite a few.

How is it that guns in society didn't save those in the US?

FALSE! Neither "the right" or Donald Trump has ever said or inferred the slightest bit that "all Muslims are a threat" YOU are who said that.
What Trump has said is that ISIS is using the refugee migration as a Trojan Horse to get into Europe (they already have) and into the US. By blocking ALL Muslims from coming in, we thereby stop ISIS from using the migration as a way of getting in here. Simple as that.
Say all you want about terrorist attacks. turn it, twist it, spin it bounce it, whatever. If the CCW guys were in the building in Paris, the terrorists would have been shot dead quickly and over 100 lives would have been saved.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rubbish. The right has been doing this since Bush was in power. Hence why a lot of people think ALL MUSLIMS are a threat. You can ignore this fact if you wish, but it's there.

Simple as that? Read my last post.

Most Muslims aren't a threat to the US. So if you're going to ban ALL of a group that is a threat, then you're going down a very slippery slope.

Who are threats? Who decides who are threats? As I said, gun owners are a threat, and anyone could make such a claim, hence if you start out with such a thing, you better be prepared when it goes against you.

 

[protectionist]

Trump's not a bigot, he's just trying really hard to get the votes of bigots by saying bigoted things.

He never said anything bigoted, Mr Bigot Card.

If I say ALL MUSLIMS should be barred from the US, I'd be implying that ALL MUSLIMS are bad, ALL MUSLIMS are a threat.

But they're not.

So what he's saying is putting something into the minds of people that ALL MUSLIMS are bad and evil and therefore we have to target Muslims.

bigot: definition of bigot in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions:"

So, Muslims hold other views, ie, based on religion, Trump is making out, falsely, that they're a threat, and then is getting people to be against Muslims.

NO, you wouldn't be implying that at all, as I just expalined in post # 26.

It isn't false that Muslims are a threat. Not only are they a threat (because ISIS, with WMDs, can conceal themselves among the Muslims), but they (the are the greatest thread America has EVER FACED.

So all Muslims pose a threat to the US?

Should the US do whatever it takes to deal with anyone who is a potential threat to any American?

Wait, that would be gun owners, they're all a "potential threat" and therefore should be locked up in concentration camps.

That's basically the "logic" coming from this.

No, that's your liberal, backasswards, twisted illogic. It's just the opposite. The law-abiding, permit carrying gun owners are your PROTECTION from those who are a threat. If they would have been in the social services center in San Bernardino, or in the concert hall in Paris when the terrorists struck, the damage would have been very limited, as the terroists would have gone down immediatley, in a hail of hollow point bullets.

And you can make arguments for anything and everything. How much of a threat is the ordinary Muslim? Not really a threat at all. What are threats are radical Muslims. Yet the right is twisting everything to make out all Muslims are a threat.

You say the terrorists would have gone down straight away, but then again the terrorists in Iraq attacking fully armed US soldiers managed to kill quite a lot of people too, right?

In the UK there was a terrorist attack. Killed - zero. In the US there was a terrorist attack - killed quite a few.

How is it that guns in society didn't save those in the US?

FALSE! Neither "the right" or Donald Trump has ever said or inferred the slightest bit that "all Muslims are a threat" YOU are who said that.
What Trump has said is that ISIS is using the refugee migration as a Trojan Horse to get into Europe (they already have) and into the US. By blocking ALL Muslims from coming in, we thereby stop ISIS from using the migration as a way of getting in here. Simple as that.
Say all you want about terrorist attacks. turn it, twist it, spin it bounce it, whatever. If the CCW guys were in the building in Paris, the terrorists would have been shot dead quickly and over 100 lives would have been saved.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rubbish. The right has been doing this since Bush was in power. Hence why a lot of people think ALL MUSLIMS are a threat. You can ignore this fact if you wish, but it's there.

Simple as that? Read my last post.

Most Muslims aren't a threat to the US. So if you're going to ban ALL of a group that is a threat, then you're going down a very slippery slope.

Who are threats? Who decides who are threats? As I said, gun owners are a threat, and anyone could make such a claim, hence if you start out with such a thing, you better be prepared when it goes against you.

You're posting TOO FAST. I can't keep up with you. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN!!!!!

 

[protectionist]

Rubbish. The right has been doing this since Bush was in power. Hence why a lot of people think ALL MUSLIMS are a threat. You can ignore this fact if you wish, but it's there.

Simple as that? Read my last post.

Most Muslims aren't a threat to the US. So if you're going to ban ALL of a group that is a threat, then you're going down a very slippery slope.

Who are threats? Who decides who are threats? As I said, gun owners are a threat, and anyone could make such a claim, hence if you start out with such a thing, you better be prepared when it goes against you.

But THIS THREAD is not about Bush, or "the right". It's about TRUMP. Right now in December 2015. GOT IT ?

You don't have to ask me who are threats. I answered that already in Post # 26. You got your answer. And as far as going against YOU, it already has when 130 people died in Paris because of your liberal, assinine gun-free zone policy, and 14 more in San Benardino

 

[555]

People need to get off their high horses about discrimination, and start worrying about national SURVIVAL.

I see no bigotry from Trump, and those who say they do, are lying. It is merely a ploy to try to derail him, and raise their own candidates.[/QUOTE]

I agree with these points. Survival sounds a bit over the top however the "March of Islam" appears to be slow and methodical...some researchers say this is a 1,400 year effort that's now becoming a force in America. At some point, Islam apparently becomes so deeply embedded that it's too late....pretty good strategy and tactics...if one is Muslim.

Trump is sounding the wake-up call; whereas Obama obviously is not. We're boiling frogs...unless we act.

 

[protectionist]

So if they are, but say they're not, they can go into the US?

If a woman wears a headscarf, she's a Muslim?

Would you ban this woman from going to the US?

So, a male, says he's not a Muslim, can enter the US without problems then under Trump's plan?

Do you think a terrorist would admit to being a Muslim if he knew that Muslims couldn't get into the US?

Do you see how bad a plan this is by Trump?

I'm sure they can work out. And you're sure too.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Rubbish. The right has been doing this since Bush was in power. Hence why a lot of people think ALL MUSLIMS are a threat. You can ignore this fact if you wish, but it's there.

Simple as that? Read my last post.

Most Muslims aren't a threat to the US. So if you're going to ban ALL of a group that is a threat, then you're going down a very slippery slope.

Who are threats? Who decides who are threats? As I said, gun owners are a threat, and anyone could make such a claim, hence if you start out with such a thing, you better be prepared when it goes against you.

But THIS THREAD is not about Bush, or "the right". It's about TRUMP. Right now in December 2015. GOT IT ?

You don't have to ask me who are threats. I answered that already in Post # 26. You got your answer. And as far as going against YOU, it already has when 130 people died in Paris because of your liberal, assinine gun-free zone policy, and 14 more in San Benardino

Paris isn't gun free, and neither is CA. Guns, and religion, are why those people are dead.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trump's not a bigot, he's just trying really hard to get the votes of bigots by saying bigoted things.

He never said anything bigoted, Mr Bigot Card.

If I say ALL MUSLIMS should be barred from the US, I'd be implying that ALL MUSLIMS are bad, ALL MUSLIMS are a threat.

But they're not.

So what he's saying is putting something into the minds of people that ALL MUSLIMS are bad and evil and therefore we have to target Muslims.

bigot: definition of bigot in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions:"

So, Muslims hold other views, ie, based on religion, Trump is making out, falsely, that they're a threat, and then is getting people to be against Muslims.

NO, you wouldn't be implying that at all, as I just expalined in post # 26.

It isn't false that Muslims are a threat. Not only are they a threat (because ISIS, with WMDs, can conceal themselves among the Muslims), but they (the are the greatest thread America has EVER FACED.

So all Muslims pose a threat to the US?

Should the US do whatever it takes to deal with anyone who is a potential threat to any American?

Wait, that would be gun owners, they're all a "potential threat" and therefore should be locked up in concentration camps.

That's basically the "logic" coming from this.

No, that's your liberal, backasswards, twisted illogic. It's just the opposite. The law-abiding, permit carrying gun owners are your PROTECTION from those who are a threat. If they would have been in the social services center in San Bernardino, or in the concert hall in Paris when the terrorists struck, the damage would have been very limited, as the terroists would have gone down immediatley, in a hail of hollow point bullets.

And you can make arguments for anything and everything. How much of a threat is the ordinary Muslim? Not really a threat at all. What are threats are radical Muslims. Yet the right is twisting everything to make out all Muslims are a threat.

You say the terrorists would have gone down straight away, but then again the terrorists in Iraq attacking fully armed US soldiers managed to kill quite a lot of people too, right?

In the UK there was a terrorist attack. Killed - zero. In the US there was a terrorist attack - killed quite a few.

How is it that guns in society didn't save those in the US?

FALSE! Neither "the right" or Donald Trump has ever said or inferred the slightest bit that "all Muslims are a threat" YOU are who said that.
What Trump has said is that ISIS is using the refugee migration as a Trojan Horse to get into Europe (they already have) and into the US. By blocking ALL Muslims from coming in, we thereby stop ISIS from using the migration as a way of getting in here. Simple as that.
Say all you want about terrorist attacks. turn it, twist it, spin it bounce it, whatever. If the CCW guys were in the building in Paris, the terrorists would have been shot dead quickly and over 100 lives would have been saved.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rubbish. The right has been doing this since Bush was in power. Hence why a lot of people think ALL MUSLIMS are a threat. You can ignore this fact if you wish, but it's there.

Simple as that? Read my last post.

Most Muslims aren't a threat to the US. So if you're going to ban ALL of a group that is a threat, then you're going down a very slippery slope.

Who are threats? Who decides who are threats? As I said, gun owners are a threat, and anyone could make such a claim, hence if you start out with such a thing, you better be prepared when it goes against you.

You're posting TOO FAST. I can't keep up with you. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN!!!!!

You explained, I explained back.

Most Muslims aren't a threat and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Extremist Muslims are a threat.

Just like gun owners aren't a threat, but gun owners with an intent are a threat.

But like I've said twice before, if you vilify EVERYONE and make this the case for imposing things on people, then it'll be done to you at some point.

Slow down? You should keep up.

 

[Tuatara]

Trump doesn't HAVE any hatred of Muslims. He is simply doing the RESPONSIBLE thing that every president of the US and member of congress is required to do. That is to PROTECT the American people. Right now ISIS is the # 1 threat to America, even worse than in World War II (when nuclear weapons were not in the picture).

Screening immigrants by Muslim category, is not only proper, it is mandatory, and anything less would be irresponsible and crazy. Frankly, I see no reason to currently be having ANY immigration into the US, when the country is badly overpopulated, and immigration is carrying a long list of harms with it, in addition to the possibilty (probability) of terrorism coming in to the US, as we've already seen with 9-11 and the San Bernardino attacks.

People need to get off their high horses about discrimination, and start worrying about national SURVIVAL.

Wanna talk about this discrimination ? Sure, How about Affirmative Action against Whites, for 50 years now ? (which I have never lowered myself to be a beneficiary of)

As a group Trump has spoken in very prejudicial terms of minorities, "but he has people who love him". Individually he might have friends among minorities, but that does not mean he is not in many ways a bigot. People that prove their worth, fine. People at the bottom become "them" with criminal, terrorist and less than honorable ties.

He might not consider his behavior but the rest of the country is watching. I think many are sick to their eyeballs with the PC police gagging them. We seek to find others not afraid of language. It is a hard road for any politician, especially one that so many want to be real and not canned party approved speeches that all sound the same, insincere.

The fact Trump seem to be teflon despite his mouth is something new and everyone is watching for the crash. Oddly he keeps gaining speed.

It's an interesting show, and everyone is watching. Reality TV hits the political stage. We root for favorites and want to vote others out. Not politics as usual.

I see no bigotry from Trump, and those who say they do, are lying. It is merely a ploy to try to derail him, and raise their own candidates.

I totally expect a warning from this statement but you sir are a fucking idiot. Really, you are.

 

[protectionist]

People need to get off their high horses about discrimination, and start worrying about national SURVIVAL.

I see no bigotry from Trump, and those who say they do, are lying. It is merely a ploy to try to derail him, and raise their own candidates.

I agree with these points. Survival sounds a bit over the top however the "March of Islam" appears to be slow and methodical...some researchers say this is a 1,400 year effort that's now becoming a force in America. At some point, Islam apparently becomes so deeply embedded that it's too late....pretty good strategy and tactics...if one is Muslim.

Trump is sounding the wake-up call; whereas Obama obviously is not. We're boiling frogs...unless we act.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you, but I think you are misjudging the size of this problem. ISIS has been working diligently at acquiring nuclear bombs, and they have great wealth. Do you think they could not get them into the US, and then detonate them here if they could get themselves in here ? Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't done it already, through our very porous US ports (which aren't even "ours" - most of them are foreign owned)

 

[protectionist]

I totally expect a warning from this statement but you sir are a fucking idiot. Really, you are.

Well you just said that to a mirror, because you offered no evidence upon which to base your hot air claim.

Come back when you have SOMETHING to offer.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Rubbish. The right has been doing this since Bush was in power. Hence why a lot of people think ALL MUSLIMS are a threat. You can ignore this fact if you wish, but it's there.

Simple as that? Read my last post.

Most Muslims aren't a threat to the US. So if you're going to ban ALL of a group that is a threat, then you're going down a very slippery slope.

Who are threats? Who decides who are threats? As I said, gun owners are a threat, and anyone could make such a claim, hence if you start out with such a thing, you better be prepared when it goes against you.

But THIS THREAD is not about Bush, or "the right". It's about TRUMP. Right now in December 2015. GOT IT ?

You don't have to ask me who are threats. I answered that already in Post # 26. You got your answer. And as far as going against YOU, it already has when 130 people died in Paris because of your liberal, assinine gun-free zone policy, and 14 more in San Benardino

So you want to ignore everything that happened?

After 9/11 Bush started to do something. He got the right riled up, and now Trump is taking over and expanding what Bush did. Hence, talking about Bush is talking about Trump. Not hard is it?

It's kind of like talking about why WW2 happened without being able to talk about anything that went on before 3rd September 1939. That's just not the way things go, sorry if you don't like it.

I might get an answer, doesn't mean I accept your answer. This is a debate, this isn't you say stuff and then I just go agree with you, you know this, right?

130 people died in Paris. Okay, who committed these acts?

Well. Men committed these acts. Men are threats.
Belgians committed these acts. Ban Belgians, and French.
Extremist Muslims committed these acts. Ban extremist Muslims.
Human beings committed these acts, ban human beings.

Oh, wait, no. You've chosen which group you want the emphasis to be, and you're digging your heels in, and then vilify 1 billion people based on the actions of half a dozen people. if half a dozen people represent the whole of Islam, then who represents the whole of Christianity?

Christians who shoot up Planned Parenthood places?

Do you see what you're doing? You're vilifying ALL MUSLIMS and the only reason you're doing this is because YOU have chosen the grouping that these people are going into and then deciding to vilify EVERYONE who is in this group. That's a definition of ridiculous.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So if they are, but say they're not, they can go into the US?

If a woman wears a headscarf, she's a Muslim?

Would you ban this woman from going to the US?

So, a male, says he's not a Muslim, can enter the US without problems then under Trump's plan?

Do you think a terrorist would admit to being a Muslim if he knew that Muslims couldn't get into the US?

Do you see how bad a plan this is by Trump?

I'm sure they can work out. And you're sure too.

I asked a question, you're avoiding the answer.

HOW DO YOU PROVE SOMEONE IS A MUSLIM?

If you can't prove someone is a Muslim, then what's the point of banning Muslims? As the only ones who will get in are the DAMN TERRORISTS.

 

[protectionist]

You explained, I explained back.

Most Muslims aren't a threat and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Extremist Muslims are a threat.

Just like gun owners aren't a threat, but gun owners with an intent are a threat.

But like I've said twice before, if you vilify EVERYONE and make this the case for imposing things on people, then it'll be done to you at some point.

Slow down? You should keep up.

You explained nothing. ISIS could Trojan Horse in with th eMuslms and that's why they are a threat. - some people have to be told twice (or is it 3 ?)

No, it won't be done to me. It's done to Muslims for a reason.(which doesn't apply to non-Muslims (you're grasping at straws - go to bed)

 

[protectionist]

I asked a question, you're avoiding the answer.

HOW DO YOU PROVE SOMEONE IS A MUSLIM?

If you can't prove someone is a Muslim, then what's the point of banning Muslims? As the only ones who will get in are the DAMN TERRORISTS.

Ask the immigration dept. I'm not in charge of it. I'd say they'll figure out a way to do it. Not my job. Not my problem.