Trumps purpose was never a Muslim ban

[Claudette]

I'd ban all immigration into this country for five years.

Obama banned the same countries in 2011 and nobody said word one about it.

I'd also kick all Muslim out of our country before we end up like Europe.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I noticed you failed to post what he actually said .

He posted what he actually did.

How about what he actually said !

That list is a pile of bullshit . Like Iraq was suddenly fixed ! Lol. The pentagon got Trumps ear and told him to drop Iraq because it fucked upmthe war on isis .

So, words weigh more than action to you?

 

[task0778]

" So you are certain that Trump was just as eager to ban Christian Syrians as he was Muslim Syrians? "

Of course not, the Christian Syrians are not the ones we have to worry about committing terrorist attacks against us. But he could not deny entry to the Muslims without also denying entry to Christians and every other religious group, which as you know would then be a muslim ban.

Were you aware that the first EO (and possibly the second, which I haven't read) had an explicit EXCEPTION for Christian refugees from Syria?

That is not true. Trump's 1st EO does have a provision that allows the Secy of State or Secy of Homeland Security to grant an exception to the ban on a case by case basis, but that provision is NOT exclusive to Christians. You are misrepresenting the truth sir.

 

[NYcarbineer]

" So you are certain that Trump was just as eager to ban Christian Syrians as he was Muslim Syrians? "

Of course not, the Christian Syrians are not the ones we have to worry about committing terrorist attacks against us. But he could not deny entry to the Muslims without also denying entry to Christians and every other religious group, which as you know would then be a muslim ban.

Were you aware that the first EO (and possibly the second, which I haven't read) had an explicit EXCEPTION for Christian refugees from Syria?

That is not true. Trump's 1st EO does have a provision that allows the Secy of State or Secy of Homeland Security to grant an exception to the ban on a case by case basis, but that provision is NOT exclusive to Christians. You are misrepresenting the truth sir.

Okay, it was limited to MINORITY RELIGIONS in Syria, which backhandedly excludes the MAJORITY RELIGION.

Can you connect the dots from there?

 

[RealDave]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Here is why you are full of shit.

1) He banned travel from countries that had not been the source of terrorists to this country.

2) If he was really concerned, he would have been reviewing & making changes to the vetting sysytem in the mean time. He obviously has not worked on this issue at all. Otherwise, that 90 day ban he announced weeks ago would require fewer days now.

Since he has not worked on this issue, it can not be the concern level he claims for national security . This is indeed a Muslim bamn. He hasd said it.

 

[RealDave]

" So you are certain that Trump was just as eager to ban Christian Syrians as he was Muslim Syrians? "

Of course not, the Christian Syrians are not the ones we have to worry about committing terrorist attacks against us. But he could not deny entry to the Muslims without also denying entry to Christians and every other religious group, which as you know would then be a muslim ban.

Were you aware that the first EO (and possibly the second, which I haven't read) had an explicit EXCEPTION for Christian refugees from Syria?

That is not true. Trump's 1st EO does have a provision that allows the Secy of State or Secy of Homeland Security to grant an exception to the ban on a case by case basis, but that provision is NOT exclusive to Christians. You are misrepresenting the truth sir.

He said he would prioritize Christians. Get better informed.

 

[danielpalos]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Mr. Trump Only won because he pandered to the national socialist right wing.

There is no exigency that requires, Infringement to our Individual Liberty.

And,

Congress cannot "prove it" with war time tax rates.

 

[task0778]

" So you are certain that Trump was just as eager to ban Christian Syrians as he was Muslim Syrians? "

Of course not, the Christian Syrians are not the ones we have to worry about committing terrorist attacks against us. But he could not deny entry to the Muslims without also denying entry to Christians and every other religious group, which as you know would then be a muslim ban.

Were you aware that the first EO (and possibly the second, which I haven't read) had an explicit EXCEPTION for Christian refugees from Syria?

That is not true. Trump's 1st EO does have a provision that allows the Secy of State or Secy of Homeland Security to grant an exception to the ban on a case by case basis, but that provision is NOT exclusive to Christians. You are misrepresenting the truth sir.

Okay, it was limited to MINORITY RELIGIONS in Syria, which backhandedly excludes the MAJORITY RELIGION.

Can you connect the dots from there?

Which is not the same as an explicit exception for Christians, is it? And it was to allow those being persecuted for their religion to escape. Which does sorta backhandedly exclude the majority religion, no?

 

[task0778]

" So you are certain that Trump was just as eager to ban Christian Syrians as he was Muslim Syrians? "

Of course not, the Christian Syrians are not the ones we have to worry about committing terrorist attacks against us. But he could not deny entry to the Muslims without also denying entry to Christians and every other religious group, which as you know would then be a muslim ban.

Were you aware that the first EO (and possibly the second, which I haven't read) had an explicit EXCEPTION for Christian refugees from Syria?

That is not true. Trump's 1st EO does have a provision that allows the Secy of State or Secy of Homeland Security to grant an exception to the ban on a case by case basis, but that provision is NOT exclusive to Christians. You are misrepresenting the truth sir.

He said he would prioritize Christians. Get better informed.

He said a lot of things. What he actually did is different.

 

[NYcarbineer]

" So you are certain that Trump was just as eager to ban Christian Syrians as he was Muslim Syrians? "

Of course not, the Christian Syrians are not the ones we have to worry about committing terrorist attacks against us. But he could not deny entry to the Muslims without also denying entry to Christians and every other religious group, which as you know would then be a muslim ban.

Were you aware that the first EO (and possibly the second, which I haven't read) had an explicit EXCEPTION for Christian refugees from Syria?

That is not true. Trump's 1st EO does have a provision that allows the Secy of State or Secy of Homeland Security to grant an exception to the ban on a case by case basis, but that provision is NOT exclusive to Christians. You are misrepresenting the truth sir.

Okay, it was limited to MINORITY RELIGIONS in Syria, which backhandedly excludes the MAJORITY RELIGION.

Can you connect the dots from there?

Which is not the same as an explicit exception for Christians, is it? And it was to allow those being persecuted for their religion to escape. Which does sorta backhandedly exclude the majority religion, no?

So you admit that it was effectively a Muslim ban.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.

Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?

..and Trump has been in office for almost 60 days, and his "temporary ban" was supposed to be 90 days, "until we find out just what is going on...". So, I am wondering just why he insists on taking the issue to the SC, since that would only happen long after the 90 day "temporary" ban would have expired. It certainly looks like Trump is not going to lift a finger to vet anybody until he wins his court fight, which is, of course, driven by his ego, and not national security.

But, I understand his priorities. We simply MUST get to the bottom of the imaginary wiretapping by Obama before we deal with national security.

Unbelievable that you would post something so self-contradicting.

Twice Trump has tried to better the vetting process and twice now he has been hamstrung by activist federal judges who acted out of authority they do not possess.

Trump's trying to do what good he can for the people, and liberal appointed judges are delaying the inevitable and committing career suicide.


I hope they get hammered. Illegally screwing around with the country's safety for political reasons is unconstitutional and quite possibly treasonous.

 

[Coyote]

One minute. Are you saying there has been a priority on accepting Christians from Syria or what?

No, there hasn't. Just that the first EO attempted to do that.

Oh! So that's a bad thing, right? There's something wrong with that, correct?

I suppose you'd rather we take in all refugees that are Muslim and hate the way America is, correct?

There is only that extreme in your world, is that correct? And yes, it's a bad thing. It's a horrible thing to turn down a family in need solely because of their religion. Or to assume they hate America because you hate them.

We take in those who are vetted and in need. Simple.

So none of them can be the Christians from Syria, according to what you posted, correct?

No, that's not what I said either. You insist on putting words in my mouth.

Here is what I said: We take in those who are vetted and in need.

Never you mind that Christian soldiers are fighting for Assad. never you mind that ISIS and "the rebels" are beheading them and all that.

I suppose that all good according to you, aye? It's not to me.

So, I suppose the fact that ISIS and Assad is beheading Muslims is OK by you?


What I stated, and I will RESTATE - is we don't have a religious preference in taking refugees from the Syrian conflict.

What I pointed out about Christian refugees is that it's erroneous to claim that we are somehow discrimminating against them in taking in refugees and use that as an excuse to discrimminate against Muslims. SYRIAN Christians have better options then do Syrian Muslims who belong to groups opposing Assad, or persecuted by ISIS and the tact that they do is part of what accounts for lower numbers, as opposed to Iraqi Christians who have no such options and who we are taking in in greater numbers - not because they Christian, but because they are refugees in need and that is what should drive our decision, not religion.

 

[Marion Morrison]

No, there hasn't. Just that the first EO attempted to do that.

Oh! So that's a bad thing, right? There's something wrong with that, correct?

I suppose you'd rather we take in all refugees that are Muslim and hate the way America is, correct?

There is only that extreme in your world, is that correct? And yes, it's a bad thing. It's a horrible thing to turn down a family in need solely because of their religion. Or to assume they hate America because you hate them.

We take in those who are vetted and in need. Simple.

So none of them can be the Christians from Syria, according to what you posted, correct?

No, that's not what I said either. You insist on putting words in my mouth.

Here is what I said: We take in those who are vetted and in need.

Never you mind that Christian soldiers are fighting for Assad. never you mind that ISIS and "the rebels" are beheading them and all that.

I suppose that all good according to you, aye? It's not to me.

So, I suppose the fact that ISIS and Assad is beheading Muslims is OK by you?


What I stated, and I will RESTATE - is we don't have a religious preference in taking refugees from the Syrian conflict.

What I pointed out about Christian refugees is that it's erroneous to claim that we are somehow discrimminating against them in taking in refugees and use that as an excuse to discrimminate against Muslims. SYRIAN Christians have better options then do Syrian Muslims who belong to groups opposing Assad, or persecuted by ISIS and the tact that they do is part of what accounts for lower numbers, as opposed to Iraqi Christians who have no such options and who we are taking in in greater numbers - not because they Christian, but because they are refugees in need and that is what should drive our decision, not religion.

Can you provide an example of Assad or the Syrian army beheading someone?

Pardon my skepticism.

 

[ptbw forever]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

You can't get around Trump's own words:

Trump:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”


In the first Muslim ban
The order also says that the administration should "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality"

When he tries to pass a total ban on muslims, then let the Judge block THAT! When THAT actually happens. Meanwhile, while he's trying to pass a temporary ban, all you guys need to grow up.

You mean like the idiotic thing he attempted to pass first? Perhaps you need to grow up.

Barely anything changed from the 1st to the 2nd travel restriction.

You are just a moron and a hack.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.

Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?

..and Trump has been in office for almost 60 days, and his "temporary ban" was supposed to be 90 days, "until we find out just what is going on...". So, I am wondering just why he insists on taking the issue to the SC, since that would only happen long after the 90 day "temporary" ban would have expired. It certainly looks like Trump is not going to lift a finger to vet anybody until he wins his court fight, which is, of course, driven by his ego, and not national security.

But, I understand his priorities. We simply MUST get to the bottom of the imaginary wiretapping by Obama before we deal with national security.

Unbelievable that you would post something so self-contradicting.

Twice Trump has tried to better the vetting process and twice now he has been hamstrung by activist federal judges who acted out of authority they do not possess.

Trump's trying to do what good he can for the people, and liberal appointed judges are delaying the inevitable and committing career suicide.


I hope they get hammered. Illegally screwing around with the country's safety for political reasons is unconstitutional and quite possibly treasonous.

Excuse me, but Trump has been in office almost 2 months, and there is nothing stopping him from improving the vetting process. The only thing that has been stopped is the ban. Are you telling me that it is impossible to vet without a ban? if so, then what I am hearing is that the "temporary" ban is just another Trump lie, and that he intends to ban as long as there is a muslim in those countries that want to attack us.

 

[ptbw forever]

Was it the Jews?

Nope. FBI credit card records show the 19 hijackers went out partying every night, using their credit cards on hookers, coke and lots and lots of booze.

People who are Islamic faith, don't do any of that.

And Christians are against abortion...

I guess Democrats are officially not Christians then....

 

[Coyote]

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being fucking disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

Stuff thats said during campaigns does not count Timmy. If it did Hillary would have been disqualified by all the crap Obama said about her in 2008. He said shes COMPLETELY out of touch with Americans and on the take.
Now suddenly in 2016, hes got good things to say about her? and he made this woman Secretary of State?
You got to be kidding me, In 2008 she was unqualified to run a hot dog stand. So here is how much, things taken out of context during presidential debates really count.



For some reason people say thing during campaigns, but it is important to look at the context. You are being fucking disingenous. You damn well know Trump is trying to protect the American people from terrorists who might come in among refugees. Yet you guys get a sad sack excuse of a Judge to obstruct an American President doing his job.

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

I don't know...you tell me
Man accused of Fort Lauderdale mass shooting has mental illness but can stand trial
Horror in Roseburg: 10 minutes, 10 deaths in Oregon's worst shooting
NBC News
Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting - Wikipedia
2014 Las Vegas shootings - Wikipedia
Shooter Had
Police: 'Paranoid' H-E-B employee shoots 4 colleagues, killing 1 at South Texas store
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Man arrested in connection with Braintree mall shooting
Police investigating shooting at Crossgates Mall, still searching for suspect
Black Friday 2016 Turns Deadly in Multiple Shootings at Malls

 

[beagle9]

To me, it seems like a very foolish and silly move and statement that the admin is making with it....

It's like saying, because there is a future murderer who is a Christian living somewhere in your city or your State, that everyone who is a Christian in your city or your State should be locked up... or punished some how because there is a future murderer of the same faith, living near you or them, somewhere....???

. The difference is, and I hate to state the obvious, but Christians haven't been killing people or terrorizing people in group think. Yes, their are lone wolves in everything imaginable, but you are being disengenuious in your comparisons here. You know good and well by the latest attacks, that there is a problem with the beliefs and ideologies (not their appearence) of a people that condone, and pull off these attacks under a specific label or title. Now if you want to gamble with American's lives then that is you, but don't expect any of us to follow you're flawed logic that could endanger our people. Attacking Christian's on behalf of Islam say's what about you ?

 

[beagle9]

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

I don't know...you tell me
Man accused of Fort Lauderdale mass shooting has mental illness but can stand trial
Horror in Roseburg: 10 minutes, 10 deaths in Oregon's worst shooting
NBC News
Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting - Wikipedia
2014 Las Vegas shootings - Wikipedia
Shooter Had
Police: 'Paranoid' H-E-B employee shoots 4 colleagues, killing 1 at South Texas store
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Man arrested in connection with Braintree mall shooting
Police investigating shooting at Crossgates Mall, still searching for suspect
Black Friday 2016 Turns Deadly in Multiple Shootings at Malls

. How about dealing with one topic at a time, and quit trying to muddy the waters like a good little liberal does. You are aiding and abetting whether you realize it or not.

 

[beagle9]

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

Well, if you were in Ireland, and the IRA is starting up again, i guess that the odds would be pretty good that Catholics are going to bomb the place...

. You can say this, but can't recognize the dangers that have taken place here on such a topic ? Hypocrite.