Would Muslims be safer and happier in the USA if we limit their numbers to NMT 2% of our population?

[BillyP]

Sharia law is unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure that carpet kissing is as well, it's defacing home furnishings, or something like that.

 

[Pogo]

Do you want to trash the entire Bill of Rights or just the First Amendment?

Oh, don't be such a drama queen.

Immigration quotas are set using several criteria.

None of which has ever been or ever will be religion.
See post 3.

Dr. Peter Hammond's eye-opening data can't be ignored.

If allowing Muslim populations to grow beyond a certain level will mean terrible events will result, I say that the Muslims will start to be killed on sight and that would be bad for Muslims.

Why don't we just herd them into "camps"? Say what you mean, flaming bigot.
Is that too much of an initial jump? OK let's start by giving them their own water fountains and bathrooms. And the back seats of the bus.

What could possibly go wrong.....

Idiot.

 

[Pogo]

We use a formula for establishing quotas.

Certainly Islam's nasty habits and excess baggage should be limited from tainting our society and culture. We need to be able to keep Muslim populations in America where they have proven to be relatively harmless.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." B. Franklin

"This nation is truly lost when our principles are dictated by our fears." Me

Google the Influenza Pandemic of 1918 - 1919.

It killed 20,000,000.

The key to stopping an enemy which won't stop on its own is to act swiftly and decisively.

ISIS and the Palestinians and Hamas and Hezbollah and Boko Haram and Abu Sayeff and the Shiites and the Wahabists and all of it are inseparable* from regular or should I say, moderate Muslims. EDIT: Inseparable in terms of radical Jihadists living among other Muslims feel more comfortable and benefit from greater support from Muslim neighbors and businesses and Mosques.

So why not limit the numbers of Muslims?

We stopped people with diseases from entering the USA after they reached Ellis Island and were discovered to be sick.

Why?

To keep America and Americans safe.

Why would the immigration laws be used to limit the numbers of Muslims to be allowed here?

To keep our government and our freedoms and our way of life safe.

EDIT: And to prevent Americans from rising up against every Muslim they see.

You're actually equating members of a religion you don't care for with........ bacteria??

Are you drunk?

 

[Pogo]

Islam as a PERSONAL religious preference is one thing.

Islam as a set of laws and justice and government system competing against the laws and sovereignty of the USA should already be prohibited by OUR law.

How far does the US Bill of Rights extend? I wonder. Does it cover groups coming to the USA with reasonable expectation of helping to spawn and shelter anti-American home-grown terrorists?

So you'd have them convert to some other religion as a requirement to immigrate?

Are you even more drunk?

What do you do when they do your bidding and once they're in, go back to it?
Or with those already here who see what you're doing, decide there must be something to it if the government is banning it, and convert?
Or have children? You're gonna have the gummint step in and dictate what religion they must follow?

What will you do --- burn them at the stake?

Are you stupid?

 

[Pogo]

​

Exactly what part of that is over your head, Adolf?

The Bill of Rights was not written to apply to Muslims.

It was written only for the Christians who were fleeing persecution from the British Throne.

Absolute retarded horseshit. But thanks for the new sigline.

While our laughter at you subsides, why don't you show us where the Constitution even mentions Muslims.

I think it's right after the Amendment about the "Iron Maiden gallop".

Dumb shit.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you want to trash the entire Bill of Rights or just the First Amendment?

Oh, don't be such a drama queen.

Immigration quotas are set using several criteria.

Dr. Peter Hammond's eye-opening data can't be ignored.

If allowing Muslim populations to grow beyond a certain level will mean terrible events will result, I say that the Muslims will start to be killed on sight and that would be bad for Muslims.

Let's do what we can to keep them safe.

Limit their numbers.

No more than 2%.

you don't find placing racial and religious quotas on immigrants to be a bit antithetical to our founding principles?

Nope.

We have ALWAYS used a quota to allow certain peoples to enter in certain numbers.

And we can't save them all.

but have we ever used a religious quota? wouldn't such a quota run counter to the first amendment?

also i assume that you only mean this as a measure for immigration. what happens if the citizen population grows to more than 2%?

Islam as a PERSONAL religious preference is one thing.

Islam as a set of laws and justice and government system competing against the laws and sovereignty of the USA should already be prohibited by OUR law.

How far does the US Bill of Rights extend? I wonder. Does it cover groups coming to the USA with reasonable expectation of helping to spawn and shelter anti-American home-grown terrorists?

So you'd have them convert to some other religion as a requirement to immigrate?

Are you even more drunk?

What do you do when they do your bidding and once they're in, go back to it?
Or with those already here who see what you're doing, decide there must be something to it if the government is banning it, and convert?
Or have children? You're gonna have the gummint step in and dictate what religion they must follow?

What will you do --- burn them at the stake?

Are you stupid?

 

[Pogo]

Why don't you just go ahead and tell us what you think the proper distribution of people is, based on whatever criteria you consider important?

Yes. Your tables must include how many Jews are going to be "permitted", how many Catholics, how many Buddhists, etc.

You could end up splitting families even. Wouldn't that be fun.

 

[Pogo]

Islam as a PERSONAL religious preference is one thing.

Islam as a set of laws and justice and government system competing against the laws and sovereignty of the USA should already be prohibited by OUR law.

so long as the two aren't in conflict, what's the problem? when they are in conflict, US law wins. every time. but then this isn't a serious concern, since in no way shape or form is it happening here.

How far does the US Bill of Rights extend? I wonder. Does it cover groups coming to the USA with reasonable expectation of helping to spawn and shelter anti-American home-grown terrorists?

if we have reason to believe that someone is coming here to encourage terrorism we have every right to deny them entrance.
you seem to believe that religion alone is evidence enough, and I would say that it is that sort of thinking that the first amendment is meant to protect against.

Then how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reached Stage 2 or more?

What time bombs would those be?

Go to the page for "Five Stages of Islam."

Read Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Now, how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reach Stage 2?

How would you have "protected America" from Tim McVeigh's bomb? Or Eric Rudolph's bombs?

 

[Pogo]

I think Eugene (I call him Eugene, for eugenicist) sums up all his drivel in one line right here.

And that totalitarian government will be VERY peaceful...

Where have we heard this before....

Again, this board needs a separate forum section for "Racists, Nazis, General Bigots and Witch Burning Motherfuckers"

 

[Mojo2]

Do you want to trash the entire Bill of Rights or just the First Amendment?

Oh, don't be such a drama queen.

Immigration quotas are set using several criteria.

None of which has ever been or ever will be religion.
See post 3.

Dr. Peter Hammond's eye-opening data can't be ignored.

If allowing Muslim populations to grow beyond a certain level will mean terrible events will result, I say that the Muslims will start to be killed on sight and that would be bad for Muslims.

Why don't we just herd them into "camps"? Say what you mean, flaming bigot.
Is that too much of an initial jump? OK let's start by giving them their own water fountains and bathrooms. And the back seats of the bus.

What could possibly go wrong.....

Idiot.

You are showing your Liberal hardwiring.

Jumping to conclusions, going off half cocked, not having all the information before going nutz, making rash generalizations, stereotyping...

We have and can and probably will change our immigration quotas from Muslim nations.

That might do the trick.

 

[Mojo2]

Islam as a PERSONAL religious preference is one thing.

Islam as a set of laws and justice and government system competing against the laws and sovereignty of the USA should already be prohibited by OUR law.

so long as the two aren't in conflict, what's the problem? when they are in conflict, US law wins. every time. but then this isn't a serious concern, since in no way shape or form is it happening here.

How far does the US Bill of Rights extend? I wonder. Does it cover groups coming to the USA with reasonable expectation of helping to spawn and shelter anti-American home-grown terrorists?

if we have reason to believe that someone is coming here to encourage terrorism we have every right to deny them entrance.
you seem to believe that religion alone is evidence enough, and I would say that it is that sort of thinking that the first amendment is meant to protect against.

Then how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reached Stage 2 or more?

What time bombs would those be?

Go to the page for "Five Stages of Islam."

Read Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Now, how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reach Stage 2?

How would you have "protected America" from Tim McVeigh's bomb? Or Eric Rudolph's bombs?

Well certainly not by limiting the numbers of Americans.

That's your goal, ain't it?

I'm trying to make the Muslims safe in America by limiting their numbers to those where they have proven to be happy and peaceful (for the most part) and healthy.

Let's keep things that way, shall we?

 

[Mojo2]

I think Eugene (I call him Eugene, for eugenicist) sums up all his drivel in one line right here.

And that totalitarian government will be VERY peaceful...

Where have we heard this before....

Again, this board needs a separate forum section for "Racists, Nazis, General Bigots and Witch Burning Motherfuckers"

And we could restrict it to Muslim posters only.

 

[Mojo2]

Islam as a PERSONAL religious preference is one thing.

Islam as a set of laws and justice and government system competing against the laws and sovereignty of the USA should already be prohibited by OUR law.

How far does the US Bill of Rights extend? I wonder. Does it cover groups coming to the USA with reasonable expectation of helping to spawn and shelter anti-American home-grown terrorists?

So you'd have them convert to some other religion as a requirement to immigrate?

Are you even more drunk?

What do you do when they do your bidding and once they're in, go back to it?
Or with those already here who see what you're doing, decide there must be something to it if the government is banning it, and convert?
Or have children? You're gonna have the gummint step in and dictate what religion they must follow?

What will you do --- burn them at the stake?

Are you stupid?

Come on! You're no help!

I'm trying to work out a compromise here.

 

[Pogo]

Islam as a PERSONAL religious preference is one thing.

Islam as a set of laws and justice and government system competing against the laws and sovereignty of the USA should already be prohibited by OUR law.

so long as the two aren't in conflict, what's the problem? when they are in conflict, US law wins. every time. but then this isn't a serious concern, since in no way shape or form is it happening here.

How far does the US Bill of Rights extend? I wonder. Does it cover groups coming to the USA with reasonable expectation of helping to spawn and shelter anti-American home-grown terrorists?

if we have reason to believe that someone is coming here to encourage terrorism we have every right to deny them entrance.
you seem to believe that religion alone is evidence enough, and I would say that it is that sort of thinking that the first amendment is meant to protect against.

Then how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reached Stage 2 or more?

What time bombs would those be?

Go to the page for "Five Stages of Islam."

Read Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Now, how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reach Stage 2?

How would you have "protected America" from Tim McVeigh's bomb? Or Eric Rudolph's bombs?

Well certainly not by limiting the numbers of Americans.

That's your goal, ain't it?

Nope. My goal is to throw your own logic back in your face.
I know you're too dense to figure this out by yourself.... these bombers were Christians. Therefore we should limit the number or Christians that can immigrate so they don't start bombing us.

How 'bout 2%, same figure? Your own logic.

But wait -- we already have more than that level in the population. They're gonna have to go.

Your own logic.

Here's the part I don't get though---
Tim McVeigh had a little help from his friend Terry; Eric Rudolph worked alone. Clearly a level of 2% population isn't a threshold that keeps any bombs from happening. One guy can do this.

Should we just get rid of everybody and be done with it?

It's your idea -- you should go first. I recommend a new life in Pyonyang. They like the way you think over there.

 

[Mojo2]

Islam as a PERSONAL religious preference is one thing.

Islam as a set of laws and justice and government system competing against the laws and sovereignty of the USA should already be prohibited by OUR law.

so long as the two aren't in conflict, what's the problem? when they are in conflict, US law wins. every time. but then this isn't a serious concern, since in no way shape or form is it happening here.

How far does the US Bill of Rights extend? I wonder. Does it cover groups coming to the USA with reasonable expectation of helping to spawn and shelter anti-American home-grown terrorists?

if we have reason to believe that someone is coming here to encourage terrorism we have every right to deny them entrance.
you seem to believe that religion alone is evidence enough, and I would say that it is that sort of thinking that the first amendment is meant to protect against.

Then how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reached Stage 2 or more?

What time bombs would those be?

Go to the page for "Five Stages of Islam."

Read Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Now, how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reach Stage 2?

How would you have "protected America" from Tim McVeigh's bomb? Or Eric Rudolph's bombs?

Well certainly not by limiting the numbers of Americans.

That's your goal, ain't it?

Nope. My goal is to throw your own logic back in your face.
I know you're too dense to figure this out by yourself.... these bombers were Christians. Therefore we should limit the number or Christians that can immigrate so they don't start bombing us.

How 'bout 2%, same figure? Your own logic.

But wait -- we already have more than that level in the population. They're gonna have to go.

Your own logic.

Here's the part I don't get though---
Tim McVeigh had a little help from his friend Terry; Eric Rudolph worked alone. Clearly a level of 2% population isn't a threshold that keeps any bombs from happening. One guy can do this.

Should we just get rid of everybody and be done with it?

It's your idea -- you should go first. I recommend a new life in Pyonyang. They like the way you think over there.

Hmmm, seems the resident Jihadists don't much like this idea.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Would Muslims be safer and happier in the USA

Muslims are safer and happier in the United States as a consequence of the Bill of Rights, which protects them from the fear, ignorance, and hate exhibited by the OP and others on the right who agree with him.

 

[Pogo]

Islam as a PERSONAL religious preference is one thing.

Islam as a set of laws and justice and government system competing against the laws and sovereignty of the USA should already be prohibited by OUR law.

so long as the two aren't in conflict, what's the problem? when they are in conflict, US law wins. every time. but then this isn't a serious concern, since in no way shape or form is it happening here.

How far does the US Bill of Rights extend? I wonder. Does it cover groups coming to the USA with reasonable expectation of helping to spawn and shelter anti-American home-grown terrorists?

if we have reason to believe that someone is coming here to encourage terrorism we have every right to deny them entrance.
you seem to believe that religion alone is evidence enough, and I would say that it is that sort of thinking that the first amendment is meant to protect against.

Then how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reached Stage 2 or more?

What time bombs would those be?

Go to the page for "Five Stages of Islam."

Read Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Now, how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reach Stage 2?

How would you have "protected America" from Tim McVeigh's bomb? Or Eric Rudolph's bombs?

Well certainly not by limiting the numbers of Americans.

That's your goal, ain't it?

Nope. My goal is to throw your own logic back in your face.
I know you're too dense to figure this out by yourself.... these bombers were Christians. Therefore we should limit the number or Christians that can immigrate so they don't start bombing us.

How 'bout 2%, same figure? Your own logic.

But wait -- we already have more than that level in the population. They're gonna have to go.

Your own logic.

Here's the part I don't get though---
Tim McVeigh had a little help from his friend Terry; Eric Rudolph worked alone. Clearly a level of 2% population isn't a threshold that keeps any bombs from happening. One guy can do this.

Should we just get rid of everybody and be done with it?

It's your idea -- you should go first. I recommend a new life in Pyonyang. They like the way you think over there.

Hmmm, seems the resident Jihadists don't much like this idea.

Actually it seems patriots don't appreciate having our Bill of Rights spat on.
To paraphrase an old saying, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own Constitution.

 

[Mojo2]

We use a formula for establishing quotas.

Certainly Islam's nasty habits and excess baggage should be limited from tainting our society and culture. We need to be able to keep Muslim populations in America where they have proven to be relatively harmless.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." B. Franklin

"This nation is truly lost when our principles are dictated by our fears." Me

Google the Influenza Pandemic of 1918 - 1919.

It killed 20,000,000.

The key to stopping an enemy which won't stop on its own is to act swiftly and decisively.

ISIS and the Palestinians and Hamas and Hezbollah and Boko Haram and Abu Sayeff and the Shiites and the Wahabists and all of it are inseparable* from regular or should I say, moderate Muslims. EDIT: Inseparable in terms of radical Jihadists living among other Muslims feel more comfortable and benefit from greater support from Muslim neighbors and businesses and Mosques.

So why not limit the numbers of Muslims?

We stopped people with diseases from entering the USA after they reached Ellis Island and were discovered to be sick.

Why?

To keep America and Americans safe.

Why would the immigration laws be used to limit the numbers of Muslims to be allowed here?

To keep our government and our freedoms and our way of life safe.

EDIT: And to prevent Americans from rising up against every Muslim they see.

You're actually equating members of a religion you don't care for with........ bacteria??

Are you drunk?

No.

I have considered the two opposing arguments.

Religious totalitarianism on one side.

Freedom on the other side.

Uhhh...

Make mine freedom!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have considered the two opposing arguments.

Religious totalitarianism on one side.

Freedom on the other side.

Uhhh...

Make mine freedom!

This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

At least you're consistent at being a failure.

 

[Mojo2]

Islam as a PERSONAL religious preference is one thing.

Islam as a set of laws and justice and government system competing against the laws and sovereignty of the USA should already be prohibited by OUR law.

so long as the two aren't in conflict, what's the problem? when they are in conflict, US law wins. every time. but then this isn't a serious concern, since in no way shape or form is it happening here.

How far does the US Bill of Rights extend? I wonder. Does it cover groups coming to the USA with reasonable expectation of helping to spawn and shelter anti-American home-grown terrorists?

if we have reason to believe that someone is coming here to encourage terrorism we have every right to deny them entrance.
you seem to believe that religion alone is evidence enough, and I would say that it is that sort of thinking that the first amendment is meant to protect against.

Then how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reached Stage 2 or more?

What time bombs would those be?

Go to the page for "Five Stages of Islam."

Read Stages 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Now, how do you propose we protect America from the time bombs that are sure to be set upon us if we reach Stage 2?

How would you have "protected America" from Tim McVeigh's bomb? Or Eric Rudolph's bombs?

Well certainly not by limiting the numbers of Americans.

That's your goal, ain't it?

Nope. My goal is to throw your own logic back in your face.
I know you're too dense to figure this out by yourself.... these bombers were Christians. Therefore we should limit the number or Christians that can immigrate so they don't start bombing us.

How 'bout 2%, same figure? Your own logic.

But wait -- we already have more than that level in the population. They're gonna have to go.

Your own logic.

Here's the part I don't get though---
Tim McVeigh had a little help from his friend Terry; Eric Rudolph worked alone. Clearly a level of 2% population isn't a threshold that keeps any bombs from happening. One guy can do this.

Should we just get rid of everybody and be done with it?

It's your idea -- you should go first. I recommend a new life in Pyonyang. They like the way you think over there.

Hmmm, seems the resident Jihadists don't much like this idea.

Actually it seems patriots don't appreciate having our Bill of Rights spat on.
To paraphrase an old saying, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own Constitution.

Okay.

Let's leave the Constitution as it is and has been since before we all were born.

We can limit immigration numbers without messing with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.