Trump proven right--------again

[Redfish]

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written
in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate,
and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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."
All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid,
reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It
is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no
less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did
more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he
deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas,
15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. You probably
won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our
narcissist-in-chief), but those are the facts.

pssssssssssst

Trump isn't the POTUS. He's not even a nominee for the next General election for POTUS.. but those are the facts.

not yet. just pointing out that what he said is legal and has been done before by a democrat president.

Funny, I don't hear any whining from you libs about what Carter did, why is that?

and I dont hear anything from any of you RW's patting Reagan on the back for allowing refugees in the country either. Sad, not funny.

No one objects to legal immigration. All we expect is that immigrants follow our laws and are properly vetted by the government before being allowed in this country.

This is a public safety issue, not an immigration issue.

But then Trump wants to stop people from entering the country who will follow the laws and would pass any vetting too.

please translate into English

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written
in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate,
and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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."
All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid,
reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It
is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no
less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did
more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he
deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas,
15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. You probably
won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our
narcissist-in-chief), but those are the facts.

Except you've forgotten that the point isn't whether the US can stop individuals from entering the US, it's about whether to actively go out and cause hatred.

please explain how enforcing our immigration laws "causes hatred".

But I will tell you that I hate anyone who will come into this country and kill innocent americans in that name of their religion. Now, which religion does that? Christians? Hindus? Buddhists? Shintos? Atheists? NO, Muslims and only muslims do that.

Because this isn't about "enforcing our immigration laws", this is about picking on people for no reason other than it gives the right a reason to have a common enemy to fight. Since the USSR disappeared, the right have been lost, and they've built up Islam as the common enemy, and even got their wish that some in Islam are giving the fear they seek.

 

[frigidweirdo]

pssssssssssst

Trump isn't the POTUS. He's not even a nominee for the next General election for POTUS.. but those are the facts.

not yet. just pointing out that what he said is legal and has been done before by a democrat president.

Funny, I don't hear any whining from you libs about what Carter did, why is that?

and I dont hear anything from any of you RW's patting Reagan on the back for allowing refugees in the country either. Sad, not funny.

No one objects to legal immigration. All we expect is that immigrants follow our laws and are properly vetted by the government before being allowed in this country.

This is a public safety issue, not an immigration issue.

But then Trump wants to stop people from entering the country who will follow the laws and would pass any vetting too.

please translate into English

Eso no puedes entender? Joder macho, tienes problemas.

 

[Redfish]

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written
in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate,
and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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."
All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid,
reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It
is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no
less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did
more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he
deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas,
15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. You probably
won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our
narcissist-in-chief), but those are the facts.

Except you've forgotten that the point isn't whether the US can stop individuals from entering the US, it's about whether to actively go out and cause hatred.

please explain how enforcing our immigration laws "causes hatred".

But I will tell you that I hate anyone who will come into this country and kill innocent americans in that name of their religion. Now, which religion does that? Christians? Hindus? Buddhists? Shintos? Atheists? NO, Muslims and only muslims do that.

Because this isn't about "enforcing our immigration laws", this is about picking on people for no reason other than it gives the right a reason to have a common enemy to fight. Since the USSR disappeared, the right have been lost, and they've built up Islam as the common enemy, and even got their wish that some in Islam are giving the fear they seek.

would you consider the San Bernardino shooters as enemies of America? yes or no.

 

[Redfish]

not yet. just pointing out that what he said is legal and has been done before by a democrat president.

Funny, I don't hear any whining from you libs about what Carter did, why is that?

and I dont hear anything from any of you RW's patting Reagan on the back for allowing refugees in the country either. Sad, not funny.

No one objects to legal immigration. All we expect is that immigrants follow our laws and are properly vetted by the government before being allowed in this country.

This is a public safety issue, not an immigration issue.

But then Trump wants to stop people from entering the country who will follow the laws and would pass any vetting too.

please translate into English

Eso no puedes entender? Joder macho, tienes problemas.

English, not espanol, senor. comprendo espanol un poquito.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president. "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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." All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. You probably won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our narcissist-in-chief), but those are the facts.

Except you've forgotten that the point isn't whether the US can stop individuals from entering the US, it's about whether to actively go out and cause hatred.

please explain how enforcing our immigration laws "causes hatred". But I will tell you that I hate anyone who will come into this country and kill innocent americans in that name of their religion. Now, which religion does that? Christians? Hindus? Buddhists? Shintos? Atheists? NO, Muslims and only muslims do that.

Because this isn't about "enforcing our immigration laws", this is about picking on people for no reason other than it gives the right a reason to have a common enemy to fight. Since the USSR disappeared, the right have been lost, and they've built up Islam as the common enemy, and even got their wish that some in Islam are giving the fear they seek.

would you consider the San Bernardino shooters as enemies of America? yes or no.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written
in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate,
and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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."
All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid,
reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It
is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no
less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did
more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he
deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas,
15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. You probably
won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our
narcissist-in-chief), but those are the facts.

Except you've forgotten that the point isn't whether the US can stop individuals from entering the US, it's about whether to actively go out and cause hatred.

please explain how enforcing our immigration laws "causes hatred".

But I will tell you that I hate anyone who will come into this country and kill innocent americans in that name of their religion. Now, which religion does that? Christians? Hindus? Buddhists? Shintos? Atheists? NO, Muslims and only muslims do that.

Because this isn't about "enforcing our immigration laws", this is about picking on people for no reason other than it gives the right a reason to have a common enemy to fight. Since the USSR disappeared, the right have been lost, and they've built up Islam as the common enemy, and even got their wish that some in Islam are giving the fear they seek.

would you consider the San Bernardino shooters as enemies of America? yes or no.

The question is more complex than a simple yes/no.

Was Timothy McVeigh an enemy of America? If he was an enemy of America then so too were he shooters are San Bernardino.

There are people who want Islam to be the new common enemy, and some Muslims are fighting back, but they want to ban ALL MUSLIMS. Why is that? Some Americans kill people with guns, should you ban all people having guns? It's the same logic, yet because it harms the right wingers on one side, they don't want a ban, but as it doesn't harm them on the other, but is seen as positive, then they're happy to have such a ban.

 

[frigidweirdo]

and I dont hear anything from any of you RW's patting Reagan on the back for allowing refugees in the country either. Sad, not funny.

No one objects to legal immigration. All we expect is that immigrants follow our laws and are properly vetted by the government before being allowed in this country.

This is a public safety issue, not an immigration issue.

But then Trump wants to stop people from entering the country who will follow the laws and would pass any vetting too.

please translate into English

Eso no puedes entender? Joder macho, tienes problemas.

English, not espanol, senor. comprendo espanol un poquito.

But then I wrote in English, in perfectly compressible English at that, and you complain. Die naechste Zeit werde ich auf Deutsch schreiben..... ja wohl.

 

[Redfish]

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written
in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate,
and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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."
All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid,
reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It
is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no
less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did
more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he
deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas,
15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. You probably
won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our
narcissist-in-chief), but those are the facts.

Except you've forgotten that the point isn't whether the US can stop individuals from entering the US, it's about whether to actively go out and cause hatred.

please explain how enforcing our immigration laws "causes hatred".

But I will tell you that I hate anyone who will come into this country and kill innocent americans in that name of their religion. Now, which religion does that? Christians? Hindus? Buddhists? Shintos? Atheists? NO, Muslims and only muslims do that.

Because this isn't about "enforcing our immigration laws", this is about picking on people for no reason other than it gives the right a reason to have a common enemy to fight. Since the USSR disappeared, the right have been lost, and they've built up Islam as the common enemy, and even got their wish that some in Islam are giving the fear they seek.

would you consider the San Bernardino shooters as enemies of America? yes or no.

The question is more complex than a simple yes/no.

Was Timothy McVeigh an enemy of America? If he was an enemy of America then so too were he shooters are San Bernardino.

There are people who want Islam to be the new common enemy, and some Muslims are fighting back, but they want to ban ALL MUSLIMS. Why is that? Some Americans kill people with guns, should you ban all people having guns? It's the same logic, yet because it harms the right wingers on one side, they don't want a ban, but as it doesn't harm them on the other, but is seen as positive, then they're happy to have such a ban.

Yes, McVeigh was an enemy of America. He is also dead. How long before the San Bernardino shooters are executed? OH, they wont be since in happened in California, they will be costing the taxpayers for the rest of their lives, just like Charlie Manson and Sirhan Sirhan.

Islam is not the enemy, the radical followers of islam are the enemy. How do you propose that we separate the "good muslims", from the "bad muslims" when we open our borders to them?

 

[Redfish]

No one objects to legal immigration. All we expect is that immigrants follow our laws and are properly vetted by the government before being allowed in this country.

This is a public safety issue, not an immigration issue.

But then Trump wants to stop people from entering the country who will follow the laws and would pass any vetting too.

please translate into English

Eso no puedes entender? Joder macho, tienes problemas.

English, not espanol, senor. comprendo espanol un poquito.

But then I wrote in English, in perfectly compressible English at that, and you complain. Die naechste Zeit werde ich auf Deutsch schreiben..... ja wohl.

essen sie sich

 

[frigidweirdo]

Except you've forgotten that the point isn't whether the US can stop individuals from entering the US, it's about whether to actively go out and cause hatred.

please explain how enforcing our immigration laws "causes hatred".

But I will tell you that I hate anyone who will come into this country and kill innocent americans in that name of their religion. Now, which religion does that? Christians? Hindus? Buddhists? Shintos? Atheists? NO, Muslims and only muslims do that.

Because this isn't about "enforcing our immigration laws", this is about picking on people for no reason other than it gives the right a reason to have a common enemy to fight. Since the USSR disappeared, the right have been lost, and they've built up Islam as the common enemy, and even got their wish that some in Islam are giving the fear they seek.

would you consider the San Bernardino shooters as enemies of America? yes or no.

The question is more complex than a simple yes/no.

Was Timothy McVeigh an enemy of America? If he was an enemy of America then so too were he shooters are San Bernardino.

There are people who want Islam to be the new common enemy, and some Muslims are fighting back, but they want to ban ALL MUSLIMS. Why is that? Some Americans kill people with guns, should you ban all people having guns? It's the same logic, yet because it harms the right wingers on one side, they don't want a ban, but as it doesn't harm them on the other, but is seen as positive, then they're happy to have such a ban.

Yes, McVeigh was an enemy of America. He is also dead. How long before the San Bernardino shooters are executed? OH, they wont be since in happened in California, they will be costing the taxpayers for the rest of their lives, just like Charlie Manson and Sirhan Sirhan.

Islam is not the enemy, the radical followers of islam are the enemy. How do you propose that we separate the "good muslims", from the "bad muslims" when we open our borders to them?

So they're not dead, well... they are. However if they're weren't that's the way that it goes. As for costing the tax payers, the tax payers don't seem to care that the US has one of the higher incarceration rates in the world. Why? Because they're told by politicians to like it.

Yes, the radical followers of Islam are supposedly the enemy. However the far right, and even people who consider themselves just right, are making out that Islam is the enemy.

They want all Muslims to be the enemy because it's easier, just as all Soviets and all Communists were the enemy in the Cold War. They need it SIMPLE.

So all Muslims must be banned from the US, it "make sense" to them, instead of having a system which is actually fair and doesn't cause more problems, which would attempt to stop those radical Muslims from coming to the US.

The far right in Europe, and possibly America, has basically stated that ALL MUSLIMS are radical Muslims by their very nature. The BNP were saying (when people actually listened to them) that all "radical Muslims" must be kicked out of the UK and then later on said that all were radical. It's the way they do things.

How do you separate good and bad Muslims?

Let's look at this from other perspectives.

First, how do you separate good Americans from bad Americans? Timothy McVeigh could have been dealt with BEFORE he did his killing.

Well, the US has a system, taken from the British, which differs from the French, of being INNOCENT UNTIL PROVE GUILTY. You can't weed out bad Americans until they have done something, or proven that they would have done something.

How do you weed out good and bad British people who want to go, visa free, to the US for holiday? Perhaps you use intelligence. Most British people are not a threat at all, and if they're a threat at home, then they won't be allowed to go to the US.

How do you weed out good and bad Muslims? Intelligence!!!! How many Muslims have gone to the US and carried out attacks? From the traveler's point of view, none since 9/11 as far as I know, and security has been tightened.

The San Bernadino attacks, the man Syed Rizwan Farook, was born in Chicago. She entered on a K-1 marriage visa, as she was married to a US citizen. Neither of them had any previous.

Sometimes you can't stop stuff, unless you restrict freedom so much that you've lost the game anyway.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then Trump wants to stop people from entering the country who will follow the laws and would pass any vetting too.

please translate into English

Eso no puedes entender? Joder macho, tienes problemas.

English, not espanol, senor. comprendo espanol un poquito.

But then I wrote in English, in perfectly compressible English at that, and you complain. Die naechste Zeit werde ich auf Deutsch schreiben..... ja wohl.

essen sie sich

And why would I eat myself?

 

[Redfish]

please translate into English

Eso no puedes entender? Joder macho, tienes problemas.

English, not espanol, senor. comprendo espanol un poquito.

But then I wrote in English, in perfectly compressible English at that, and you complain. Die naechste Zeit werde ich auf Deutsch schreiben..... ja wohl.

essen sie sich

And why would I eat myself?

its what frigid weirdos do

 

[Redfish]

please explain how enforcing our immigration laws "causes hatred".

But I will tell you that I hate anyone who will come into this country and kill innocent americans in that name of their religion. Now, which religion does that? Christians? Hindus? Buddhists? Shintos? Atheists? NO, Muslims and only muslims do that.

Because this isn't about "enforcing our immigration laws", this is about picking on people for no reason other than it gives the right a reason to have a common enemy to fight. Since the USSR disappeared, the right have been lost, and they've built up Islam as the common enemy, and even got their wish that some in Islam are giving the fear they seek.

would you consider the San Bernardino shooters as enemies of America? yes or no.

The question is more complex than a simple yes/no.

Was Timothy McVeigh an enemy of America? If he was an enemy of America then so too were he shooters are San Bernardino.

There are people who want Islam to be the new common enemy, and some Muslims are fighting back, but they want to ban ALL MUSLIMS. Why is that? Some Americans kill people with guns, should you ban all people having guns? It's the same logic, yet because it harms the right wingers on one side, they don't want a ban, but as it doesn't harm them on the other, but is seen as positive, then they're happy to have such a ban.

Yes, McVeigh was an enemy of America. He is also dead. How long before the San Bernardino shooters are executed? OH, they wont be since in happened in California, they will be costing the taxpayers for the rest of their lives, just like Charlie Manson and Sirhan Sirhan.

Islam is not the enemy, the radical followers of islam are the enemy. How do you propose that we separate the "good muslims", from the "bad muslims" when we open our borders to them?

So they're not dead, well... they are. However if they're weren't that's the way that it goes. As for costing the tax payers, the tax payers don't seem to care that the US has one of the higher incarceration rates in the world. Why? Because they're told by politicians to like it.

Yes, the radical followers of Islam are supposedly the enemy. However the far right, and even people who consider themselves just right, are making out that Islam is the enemy.

They want all Muslims to be the enemy because it's easier, just as all Soviets and all Communists were the enemy in the Cold War. They need it SIMPLE.

So all Muslims must be banned from the US, it "make sense" to them, instead of having a system which is actually fair and doesn't cause more problems, which would attempt to stop those radical Muslims from coming to the US.

The far right in Europe, and possibly America, has basically stated that ALL MUSLIMS are radical Muslims by their very nature. The BNP were saying (when people actually listened to them) that all "radical Muslims" must be kicked out of the UK and then later on said that all were radical. It's the way they do things.

How do you separate good and bad Muslims?

Let's look at this from other perspectives.

First, how do you separate good Americans from bad Americans? Timothy McVeigh could have been dealt with BEFORE he did his killing.

Well, the US has a system, taken from the British, which differs from the French, of being INNOCENT UNTIL PROVE GUILTY. You can't weed out bad Americans until they have done something, or proven that they would have done something.

How do you weed out good and bad British people who want to go, visa free, to the US for holiday? Perhaps you use intelligence. Most British people are not a threat at all, and if they're a threat at home, then they won't be allowed to go to the US.

How do you weed out good and bad Muslims? Intelligence!!!! How many Muslims have gone to the US and carried out attacks? From the traveler's point of view, none since 9/11 as far as I know, and security has been tightened.

The San Bernadino attacks, the man Syed Rizwan Farook, was born in Chicago. She entered on a K-1 marriage visa, as she was married to a US citizen. Neither of them had any previous.

Sometimes you can't stop stuff, unless you restrict freedom so much that you've lost the game anyway.

that makes a little sense. However, I must go back to the bowl of grapes analogy. You have a bowl containing 100 grapes, you know that 10 of them contain poison that will kill you, would you just grab a handful and eat them? Or, would you do as Trump suggests and not eat any of them until you had a valid way to find the poisoned ones?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because this isn't about "enforcing our immigration laws", this is about picking on people for no reason other than it gives the right a reason to have a common enemy to fight. Since the USSR disappeared, the right have been lost, and they've built up Islam as the common enemy, and even got their wish that some in Islam are giving the fear they seek.

would you consider the San Bernardino shooters as enemies of America? yes or no.

The question is more complex than a simple yes/no.

Was Timothy McVeigh an enemy of America? If he was an enemy of America then so too were he shooters are San Bernardino.

There are people who want Islam to be the new common enemy, and some Muslims are fighting back, but they want to ban ALL MUSLIMS. Why is that? Some Americans kill people with guns, should you ban all people having guns? It's the same logic, yet because it harms the right wingers on one side, they don't want a ban, but as it doesn't harm them on the other, but is seen as positive, then they're happy to have such a ban.

Yes, McVeigh was an enemy of America. He is also dead. How long before the San Bernardino shooters are executed? OH, they wont be since in happened in California, they will be costing the taxpayers for the rest of their lives, just like Charlie Manson and Sirhan Sirhan.

Islam is not the enemy, the radical followers of islam are the enemy. How do you propose that we separate the "good muslims", from the "bad muslims" when we open our borders to them?

So they're not dead, well... they are. However if they're weren't that's the way that it goes. As for costing the tax payers, the tax payers don't seem to care that the US has one of the higher incarceration rates in the world. Why? Because they're told by politicians to like it.

Yes, the radical followers of Islam are supposedly the enemy. However the far right, and even people who consider themselves just right, are making out that Islam is the enemy.

They want all Muslims to be the enemy because it's easier, just as all Soviets and all Communists were the enemy in the Cold War. They need it SIMPLE.

So all Muslims must be banned from the US, it "make sense" to them, instead of having a system which is actually fair and doesn't cause more problems, which would attempt to stop those radical Muslims from coming to the US.

The far right in Europe, and possibly America, has basically stated that ALL MUSLIMS are radical Muslims by their very nature. The BNP were saying (when people actually listened to them) that all "radical Muslims" must be kicked out of the UK and then later on said that all were radical. It's the way they do things.

How do you separate good and bad Muslims?

Let's look at this from other perspectives.

First, how do you separate good Americans from bad Americans? Timothy McVeigh could have been dealt with BEFORE he did his killing.

Well, the US has a system, taken from the British, which differs from the French, of being INNOCENT UNTIL PROVE GUILTY. You can't weed out bad Americans until they have done something, or proven that they would have done something.

How do you weed out good and bad British people who want to go, visa free, to the US for holiday? Perhaps you use intelligence. Most British people are not a threat at all, and if they're a threat at home, then they won't be allowed to go to the US.

How do you weed out good and bad Muslims? Intelligence!!!! How many Muslims have gone to the US and carried out attacks? From the traveler's point of view, none since 9/11 as far as I know, and security has been tightened.

The San Bernadino attacks, the man Syed Rizwan Farook, was born in Chicago. She entered on a K-1 marriage visa, as she was married to a US citizen. Neither of them had any previous.

Sometimes you can't stop stuff, unless you restrict freedom so much that you've lost the game anyway.

that makes a little sense. However, I must go back to the bowl of grapes analogy. You have a bowl containing 100 grapes, you know that 10 of them contain poison that will kill you, would you just grab a handful and eat them? Or, would you do as Trump suggests and not eat any of them until you had a valid way to find the poisoned ones?

So you have two bowls of grapes. One bowl contains 1 billion grapes and there are 30 poisoned ones in there, the other contains 300 million grapes and contains 10,000 poisoned grapes.

Which bowl are you going to smash to smithereens?

 

[Redfish]

would you consider the San Bernardino shooters as enemies of America? yes or no.

The question is more complex than a simple yes/no.

Was Timothy McVeigh an enemy of America? If he was an enemy of America then so too were he shooters are San Bernardino.

There are people who want Islam to be the new common enemy, and some Muslims are fighting back, but they want to ban ALL MUSLIMS. Why is that? Some Americans kill people with guns, should you ban all people having guns? It's the same logic, yet because it harms the right wingers on one side, they don't want a ban, but as it doesn't harm them on the other, but is seen as positive, then they're happy to have such a ban.

Yes, McVeigh was an enemy of America. He is also dead. How long before the San Bernardino shooters are executed? OH, they wont be since in happened in California, they will be costing the taxpayers for the rest of their lives, just like Charlie Manson and Sirhan Sirhan.

Islam is not the enemy, the radical followers of islam are the enemy. How do you propose that we separate the "good muslims", from the "bad muslims" when we open our borders to them?

So they're not dead, well... they are. However if they're weren't that's the way that it goes. As for costing the tax payers, the tax payers don't seem to care that the US has one of the higher incarceration rates in the world. Why? Because they're told by politicians to like it.

Yes, the radical followers of Islam are supposedly the enemy. However the far right, and even people who consider themselves just right, are making out that Islam is the enemy.

They want all Muslims to be the enemy because it's easier, just as all Soviets and all Communists were the enemy in the Cold War. They need it SIMPLE.

So all Muslims must be banned from the US, it "make sense" to them, instead of having a system which is actually fair and doesn't cause more problems, which would attempt to stop those radical Muslims from coming to the US.

The far right in Europe, and possibly America, has basically stated that ALL MUSLIMS are radical Muslims by their very nature. The BNP were saying (when people actually listened to them) that all "radical Muslims" must be kicked out of the UK and then later on said that all were radical. It's the way they do things.

How do you separate good and bad Muslims?

Let's look at this from other perspectives.

First, how do you separate good Americans from bad Americans? Timothy McVeigh could have been dealt with BEFORE he did his killing.

Well, the US has a system, taken from the British, which differs from the French, of being INNOCENT UNTIL PROVE GUILTY. You can't weed out bad Americans until they have done something, or proven that they would have done something.

How do you weed out good and bad British people who want to go, visa free, to the US for holiday? Perhaps you use intelligence. Most British people are not a threat at all, and if they're a threat at home, then they won't be allowed to go to the US.

How do you weed out good and bad Muslims? Intelligence!!!! How many Muslims have gone to the US and carried out attacks? From the traveler's point of view, none since 9/11 as far as I know, and security has been tightened.

The San Bernadino attacks, the man Syed Rizwan Farook, was born in Chicago. She entered on a K-1 marriage visa, as she was married to a US citizen. Neither of them had any previous.

Sometimes you can't stop stuff, unless you restrict freedom so much that you've lost the game anyway.

that makes a little sense. However, I must go back to the bowl of grapes analogy. You have a bowl containing 100 grapes, you know that 10 of them contain poison that will kill you, would you just grab a handful and eat them? Or, would you do as Trump suggests and not eat any of them until you had a valid way to find the poisoned ones?

So you have two bowls of grapes. One bowl contains 1 billion grapes and there are 30 poisoned ones in there, the other contains 300 million grapes and contains 10,000 poisoned grapes.

Which bowl are you going to smash to smithereens?

your numbers are off, but the answer is neither one. I would find ways to determine which grapes were bad before dealing with either one.

If you think that there are only 30 radical muslims in the world, you are either very naïve or very stupid.

 

[Faun]

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written
in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate,
and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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."
All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid,
reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It
is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no
less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did
more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he
deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas,
15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. You probably
won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our
narcissist-in-chief), but those are the facts.

pssssssssssst

Trump isn't the POTUS. He's not even a nominee for the next General election for POTUS.. but those are the facts.

not yet. just pointing out that what he said is legal and has been done before by a democrat president.

Funny, I don't hear any whining from you libs about what Carter did, why is that?

Because Jimmy didn't do it on religious grounds and he banned immigrants from a nation which took Americans hostage. What has Syria done against the U.S. to warrant such a ban?

 

[Redfish]

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written
in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate,
and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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."
All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid,
reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It
is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no
less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did
more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he
deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas,
15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. You probably
won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our
narcissist-in-chief), but those are the facts.

pssssssssssst

Trump isn't the POTUS. He's not even a nominee for the next General election for POTUS.. but those are the facts.

not yet. just pointing out that what he said is legal and has been done before by a democrat president.

Funny, I don't hear any whining from you libs about what Carter did, why is that?

Because Jimmy didn't do it on religious grounds and he banned immigrants from a nation which took Americans hostage. What has Syria done against the U.S. to warrant such a ban?

I agree that Trump did not say it well. He should have said: we need to put a stop to all immigration until we find a valid way to vet every person before they are allowed to enter this country. for the record, he did not say ban Syrian refugees, he said muslims.

As politically incorrect as his statement was, he was correct in principle. We should not open our borders to people that we have no way of vetting.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The question is more complex than a simple yes/no.

Was Timothy McVeigh an enemy of America? If he was an enemy of America then so too were he shooters are San Bernardino.

There are people who want Islam to be the new common enemy, and some Muslims are fighting back, but they want to ban ALL MUSLIMS. Why is that? Some Americans kill people with guns, should you ban all people having guns? It's the same logic, yet because it harms the right wingers on one side, they don't want a ban, but as it doesn't harm them on the other, but is seen as positive, then they're happy to have such a ban.

Yes, McVeigh was an enemy of America. He is also dead. How long before the San Bernardino shooters are executed? OH, they wont be since in happened in California, they will be costing the taxpayers for the rest of their lives, just like Charlie Manson and Sirhan Sirhan.

Islam is not the enemy, the radical followers of islam are the enemy. How do you propose that we separate the "good muslims", from the "bad muslims" when we open our borders to them?

So they're not dead, well... they are. However if they're weren't that's the way that it goes. As for costing the tax payers, the tax payers don't seem to care that the US has one of the higher incarceration rates in the world. Why? Because they're told by politicians to like it.

Yes, the radical followers of Islam are supposedly the enemy. However the far right, and even people who consider themselves just right, are making out that Islam is the enemy.

They want all Muslims to be the enemy because it's easier, just as all Soviets and all Communists were the enemy in the Cold War. They need it SIMPLE.

So all Muslims must be banned from the US, it "make sense" to them, instead of having a system which is actually fair and doesn't cause more problems, which would attempt to stop those radical Muslims from coming to the US.

The far right in Europe, and possibly America, has basically stated that ALL MUSLIMS are radical Muslims by their very nature. The BNP were saying (when people actually listened to them) that all "radical Muslims" must be kicked out of the UK and then later on said that all were radical. It's the way they do things.

How do you separate good and bad Muslims?

Let's look at this from other perspectives.

First, how do you separate good Americans from bad Americans? Timothy McVeigh could have been dealt with BEFORE he did his killing.

Well, the US has a system, taken from the British, which differs from the French, of being INNOCENT UNTIL PROVE GUILTY. You can't weed out bad Americans until they have done something, or proven that they would have done something.

How do you weed out good and bad British people who want to go, visa free, to the US for holiday? Perhaps you use intelligence. Most British people are not a threat at all, and if they're a threat at home, then they won't be allowed to go to the US.

How do you weed out good and bad Muslims? Intelligence!!!! How many Muslims have gone to the US and carried out attacks? From the traveler's point of view, none since 9/11 as far as I know, and security has been tightened.

The San Bernadino attacks, the man Syed Rizwan Farook, was born in Chicago. She entered on a K-1 marriage visa, as she was married to a US citizen. Neither of them had any previous.

Sometimes you can't stop stuff, unless you restrict freedom so much that you've lost the game anyway.

that makes a little sense. However, I must go back to the bowl of grapes analogy. You have a bowl containing 100 grapes, you know that 10 of them contain poison that will kill you, would you just grab a handful and eat them? Or, would you do as Trump suggests and not eat any of them until you had a valid way to find the poisoned ones?

So you have two bowls of grapes. One bowl contains 1 billion grapes and there are 30 poisoned ones in there, the other contains 300 million grapes and contains 10,000 poisoned grapes.

Which bowl are you going to smash to smithereens?

your numbers are off, but the answer is neither one. I would find ways to determine which grapes were bad before dealing with either one.

If you think that there are only 30 radical muslims in the world, you are either very naïve or very stupid.

Numbers don't matter, this is theoretical anyway. The point being there are far more Americans out there who will kill other Americans this year than Radical Muslims.

You'd go find out the situation and deal with the situation. You wouldn't get rid of the good grapes, you'd search out the bad grapes. However the right is simply labeling all grapes of a particular type bad and then dealing with all of them as if they were all poisonous.

Only the simple minded would do that. And that's who Trump is aiming his campaign at.

 

[Faun]

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written
in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate,
and signed by a Democrat president.
"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. 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, the president 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."
All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid,
reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate themselves. It
is already the law of the land. And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no
less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did
more. He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he
deported a bunch. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas,
15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979. You probably
won't hear of this from our mainstream media (nor from our
narcissist-in-chief), but those are the facts.

pssssssssssst

Trump isn't the POTUS. He's not even a nominee for the next General election for POTUS.. but those are the facts.

not yet. just pointing out that what he said is legal and has been done before by a democrat president.

Funny, I don't hear any whining from you libs about what Carter did, why is that?

Because Jimmy didn't do it on religious grounds and he banned immigrants from a nation which took Americans hostage. What has Syria done against the U.S. to warrant such a ban?

I agree that Trump did not say it well. He should have said: we need to put a stop to all immigration until we find a valid way to vet every person before they are allowed to enter this country. for the record, he did not say ban Syrian refugees, he said muslims.

As politically incorrect as his statement was, he was correct in principle. We should not open our borders to people that we have no way of vetting.

Does this mean you understand the answer to your question?