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

[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.

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.

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

 

[Redfish]

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.

that's not true, when the FDA finds some contaminated grapes it bans the sale of all grapes from that region or producer until the source of the contamination can be eliminated.

No one, Trump or anyone else, has ever said that all muslims are terrorists or bad people. But everyone with a speck of common sense knows that radical muslims are killing innocent people all over the world in the name of Islam.

It is very likely that some of the San Bernardino victims were liberals who think as you do. Why do you want to put your life at risk?

 

[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.

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

that's not true, when the FDA finds some contaminated grapes it bans the sale of all grapes from that region or producer until the source of the contamination can be eliminated.

No one, Trump or anyone else, has ever said that all muslims are terrorists or bad people. But everyone with a speck of common sense knows that radical muslims are killing innocent people all over the world in the name of Islam.

It is very likely that some of the San Bernardino victims were liberals who think as you do. Why do you want to put your life at risk?

Maybe it does. But then again the grapes aren't human beings. The govt accepts that individuals have Human Rights and are deserving of a certain amount of dignity.

Also the country has a protection of a right to religion. If you start targeting people because of their religion, rather than where they come from, it sends a message to those Americans who are of that religion that they're in a hostile country.

No, Trump didn't say all Muslims were terrorists or all bad people. However he doesn't give a damn. He'd be willing to put Muslims in camps and to prevent all foreign Muslims from going to the USA. Why? Because he's pandering to the simple minded.

Okay, so some of the victims might have been Liberals. Every day in the US everyone takes a risk, whether they go outside or not. That's the nature of guns in society.

 

[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?

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.

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

It's not moot at all. I asked a question and I'd like the answer. Do you fear the current situation where EU citizens can go to the US visa free or not?

 

[CowboyTed]

Personally, i support a temporary pause on all immigration. We need time to seriously assess the problems. Only a pause will allow us to do that.

Don't you mean all Visa's.... Lets get clear...

Trying to link terrorism to Immigration is just plain stupid... 911 was holiday visas...

Why would anyone go through the rigorous immigration process when a Holiday visa is so simple to get.

 

[Faun]

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.

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

Why are you so afraid? Over the last 10 years, there have been roughly 150,000 people killed in the U.S. .... less than 30 of them came at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

 

[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?

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.

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

Why are you so afraid? Over the last 10 years, there have been roughly 150,000 people killed in the U.S. .... less than 30 of them came at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

would you say that if you or member of your family was one of the victims?

personally I am not afraid, but neither were the San Bernardino or Ft Hood victims.

 

[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?

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.

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

It's not moot at all. I asked a question and I'd like the answer. Do you fear the current situation where EU citizens can go to the US visa free or not?

yes, that presents a risk, the Paris shootings prove the risk. The question is whether its an acceptable risk, and only time will answer that.

 

[Faun]

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.

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

Why are you so afraid? Over the last 10 years, there have been roughly 150,000 people killed in the U.S. .... less than 30 of them came at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

would you say that if you or member of your family was one of the victims?

personally I am not afraid, but neither were the San Bernardino or Ft Hood victims.

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the U.S..

 

[Redfish]

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.

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

Why are you so afraid? Over the last 10 years, there have been roughly 150,000 people killed in the U.S. .... less than 30 of them came at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

would you say that if you or member of your family was one of the victims?

personally I am not afraid, but neither were the San Bernardino or Ft Hood victims.

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the U.S..

If you weren't so stupid you would understand that any ban would be temporary and that it would be lifted once the country had a valid vetting system.

But tell us why you want to open our borders to "all muslims" What does the USA gain by allowing unlimited numbers of un-vetted people of any demographic into this country?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Reagan himself admitted that was a mistake. Why would we pat him on the back for it?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

Why are you so afraid? Over the last 10 years, there have been roughly 150,000 people killed in the U.S. .... less than 30 of them came at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

would you say that if you or member of your family was one of the victims?

personally I am not afraid, but neither were the San Bernardino or Ft Hood victims.

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the U.S..

Do you lock your doors at night?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Actually, I do object to legal immigration. I think we need to drastically reduce it, especially the H1-B visas.

 

[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.

Actually, I do object to legal immigration. I think we need to drastically reduce it, especially the H1-B visas.

I agree that there should be limits, both in numbers and in the educational status of the immigrants.

 

[Faun]

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

Why are you so afraid? Over the last 10 years, there have been roughly 150,000 people killed in the U.S. .... less than 30 of them came at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

would you say that if you or member of your family was one of the victims?

personally I am not afraid, but neither were the San Bernardino or Ft Hood victims.

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the U.S..

If you weren't so stupid you would understand that any ban would be temporary and that it would be lifted once the country had a valid vetting system.

But tell us why you want to open our borders to "all muslims" What does the USA gain by allowing unlimited numbers of un-vetted people of any demographic into this country?

It means we put our principles above your fears. But since you have no principles, you can't understand that.

 

[Redfish]

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

Why are you so afraid? Over the last 10 years, there have been roughly 150,000 people killed in the U.S. .... less than 30 of them came at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

would you say that if you or member of your family was one of the victims?

personally I am not afraid, but neither were the San Bernardino or Ft Hood victims.

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the U.S..

If you weren't so stupid you would understand that any ban would be temporary and that it would be lifted once the country had a valid vetting system.

But tell us why you want to open our borders to "all muslims" What does the USA gain by allowing unlimited numbers of un-vetted people of any demographic into this country?

It means we put our principles above your fears. But since you have no principles, you can't understand that.

Principles? how about common sense?

But you dodged the question so here it is again: But tell us why you want to open our borders to "all muslims" What does the USA gain by allowing unlimited numbers of un-vetted people of any demographic into this country?[/

 

[Faun]

Do you fear having borders that are open to those without visas from the EU?

your question is moot. Terrorists can have EU visas. The Paris murderers were in France legally.

Why are you so afraid? Over the last 10 years, there have been roughly 150,000 people killed in the U.S. .... less than 30 of them came at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

would you say that if you or member of your family was one of the victims?

personally I am not afraid, but neither were the San Bernardino or Ft Hood victims.

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the U.S..

Do you lock your doors at night?

Of course. There are over 2 million burglaries a year.

What does your non-sequitur have to do with Muslim terrorism, which has killed fewer than 30 people in the U.S. out of about 150,000 murders/manslaughters in the U.S. over the last 10 years?

 

[Faun]

Why are you so afraid? Over the last 10 years, there have been roughly 150,000 people killed in the U.S. .... less than 30 of them came at the hands of Muslim terrorists.

would you say that if you or member of your family was one of the victims?

personally I am not afraid, but neither were the San Bernardino or Ft Hood victims.

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the U.S..

If you weren't so stupid you would understand that any ban would be temporary and that it would be lifted once the country had a valid vetting system.

But tell us why you want to open our borders to "all muslims" What does the USA gain by allowing unlimited numbers of un-vetted people of any demographic into this country?

It means we put our principles above your fears. But since you have no principles, you can't understand that.

Principles? how about common sense?

But you dodged the question so here it is again: But tell us why you want to open our borders to "all muslims" What does the USA gain by allowing unlimited numbers of un-vetted people of any demographic into this country?[/

You have no common sense either, otherwise, you would understand the insignificance of fewer than 30 people in the U.S. out of about 150,000 murders/manslaughters in the U.S. over the last 10 years being killed by Muslim extremists.

 

[Redfish]

would you say that if you or member of your family was one of the victims?

personally I am not afraid, but neither were the San Bernardino or Ft Hood victims.

If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't be in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the U.S..

If you weren't so stupid you would understand that any ban would be temporary and that it would be lifted once the country had a valid vetting system.

But tell us why you want to open our borders to "all muslims" What does the USA gain by allowing unlimited numbers of un-vetted people of any demographic into this country?

It means we put our principles above your fears. But since you have no principles, you can't understand that.

Principles? how about common sense?

But you dodged the question so here it is again: But tell us why you want to open our borders to "all muslims" What does the USA gain by allowing unlimited numbers of un-vetted people of any demographic into this country?[/

You have no common sense either, otherwise, you would understand the insignificance of fewer than 30 people in the U.S. out of about 150,000 murders/manslaughters in the U.S. over the last 10 years being killed by Muslim extremists.

are you really so ignorant that you think there are only 30 radical muslim terrorists in the USA today?

and yes, ghetto violence in this country is epidemic. What has the Kenyan messiah done to reduce those numbers?