Quote:Like the nuance of forcing people onto a website that doesnt work based on a bill no one read?
What about blaming terrorism on a video? Blaming it on climate change? Yes yes. Thats tge type of sharp creased intilectualism that makes the world go round.
Ofcourse those blow hard billionaire international businessmen dont know anything about attention to detail.
The sad part is that the loudest people conplaining about nuance dont know the basic common law exceptions to the doctrine of jus soli, have no idea what glass stegal was, dont understand the establishment clause, dont know the details of barrack obamas legal career and think fannie mae is a blm activist.
In reality its the left that doesnt want to engage in robust reasoned debate on specific issues because based on the record they have plainly failed.
We have been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy annually through fiscal policy trillions annually through easing monetary policy and had an effective zero funds rate for the better part of a decade. Suprise suprise we still dont have an economic utopia. That is the empirical failure of keynsian economics but the lefts only retort is "well at least were not meany pants" and trump is the one who lacks nuance?
The extent of this nuanced robust debate you refer to is saying baby body parts over and over until a crazy person murders people than acting shocked that your atone cold lies could have anything to do with motivating the rabble to commit acys of terrorist. Or basing your entire foreign policy on a single enemey and if we just the words radical Islam it will somehow make things better or "we win they lose". Or having the current leader in polling just telling you he's rich and that America is a bunch of sucky losers but he can fix it just like those companies of his he ran into bankruptcy.
If this is what you consider robust debate than its no surprise why the right tries to villify and ridicule acedemia. It makes perfect sense.
Nuance is understanding the difference between "carpet bombing" and strategic strikes and how one is an act of terrorism and the other is a more effectual way to deal with an enemy like isis. Or undersranding how saying we should be less concerned with killing innocents and presumably doing so if you were in charge leads to more coverts to extremism.
Quote:Like the nuance of forcing people onto a website that doesnt work based on a bill no one read?
What about blaming terrorism on a video? Blaming it on climate change? Yes yes. Thats tge type of sharp creased intilectualism that makes the world go round.
Ofcourse those blow hard billionaire international businessmen dont know anything about attention to detail.
The sad part is that the loudest people conplaining about nuance dont know the basic common law exceptions to the doctrine of jus soli, have no idea what glass stegal was, dont understand the establishment clause, dont know the details of barrack obamas legal career and think fannie mae is a blm activist.
In reality its the left that doesnt want to engage in robust reasoned debate on specific issues because based on the record they have plainly failed.
We have been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy annually through fiscal policy trillions annually through easing monetary policy and had an effective zero funds rate for the better part of a decade. Suprise suprise we still dont have an economic utopia. That is the empirical failure of keynsian economics but the lefts only retort is "well at least were not meany pants" and trump is the one who lacks nuance?
Again, you're assuming I'm defending Democratic actions just because I'm criticizing Trump. The Democrats can be wrong, and Trump can be everything I've said he is. They are not mutually exclusive conclusions.
Quote:"I am in favor of banning all Muslims from entering the United States until our representatives figure out what the _____ Is going on" his major emphasis wasn't on a long term full scale ban of Muslims, it was on figuring out what the _______ Is going on. We have to have a system of affirmative verification for everyone that comes into this country. the current system of open borders and online applications is STUPID!
This idea that there is any rational provocation for terrorism is just plain silly. 1.6 billion people are told from birth that there is glory in bringing Jihad to the Infadel. That has nothing to do with Trump, Gingrich, Bush anyone. That's the Quran. If you discount that as the foundation for terrorism then that would be like a Mechanic changing you tires when your engine is blown.
In Turkey during a soccer game they promoted a moment of silence for the victims of the terror attack. That moment of silence was interrupted by chants of Alluh akbar. In paris they had rallies for Muslims against terrorism, i think 30 people showed up. In countries like saudi Arabia its still a crime for women to drive, still a crime to openly display paraphernalia from other faiths, its still a crime to openly proselytize against Islam, they still execute people based on a fundamental interpretation of Islam. We can't sit back twiddle our thumbs and wait for people who enable the radical belief system to do our work for us.
There are reform movements within the faith that are trying to omit shariah law and the call to offensive Jihad. Those are the best hope that we have to alleviate the problem without direct conflict, but they only have a chance if the Muslim world openly condemns the part of fundamental Islam that advocate violence against the "House of War." Those TRUE moderates point out that when you enable the belief system of so called moderates that still contains at its core a call to Jihad that you are in fact proliferating the call to Terror.
Yes, When someone here in this country illegally commits a crime they are by definition a criminal Illegal alien. The fundamental purpose of assembling government is to protect the citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and property of those in border states and no matter what you say the current system isn't doing it and the proliferation of that system in the face of the real impact to the citizens of this country is to reject the main tenant of governance for some diseased blanket of moral relativism and INCLUSION.
There are 8 million Muslims in the United States. Two of them shot up San Bernardino. So let's just throw out everything we stand for as a country in terms of religious freedom. Let's establish a religious test for entering the country, "until we can figure out what's going on," whatever that means. Let's just alienate 1.6 billion people worldwide and tell them they can't enter the country, can't come over and visit their relatives, can't go see the Grand Canyon, can't come over to go to engineering school at the University of Illinois. No American dream for you.
I can't buy into that.
Quote:There are 8 million Muslims in the United States. Two of them shot up San Bernardino. So let's just throw out everything we stand for as a country in terms of religious freedom. Let's establish a religious test for entering the country, "until we can figure out what's going on," whatever that means. Let's just alienate 1.6 billion people worldwide and tell them they can't enter the country, can't come over and visit their relatives, can't go see the Grand Canyon, can't come over to go to engineering school at the University of Illinois. No American dream for you.
I can't buy into that.
What we stand for now in this day in age Is now one of our biggest downfalls. We have to adjust to the times of today and the current problems we're facing. Today's problems aren't the same problems this nation had when our constitution was written. We have to adjust to today and todays enemies and once that is finally done and we've come up with a plan in place, then this nation can continue on, business as usual..
Quote:The extent of this nuanced robust debate you refer to is saying baby body parts over and over until a crazy person murders people than acting shocked that your atone cold lies could have anything to do with motivating the rabble to commit acys of terrorist.
Lies? you mean the lies about a practice that was shown to be against federal law so blatantly that the organization promised to stop the practice? lol.
Or basing your entire foreign policy on a single enemey and if we just the words radical Islam it will somehow make things better or "we win they lose". Or having the current leader in polling just telling you he's rich and that America is a bunch of sucky losers but he can fix it just like those companies of his he ran into bankruptcy.
4 deals... ten billion dollar empire... nuance.
If this is what you consider robust debate than its no surprise why the right tries to villify and ridicule acedemia. It makes perfect sense.
You mean the same academia that tries to villify and ridicule him?
Nuance is understanding the difference between "carpet bombing" and strategic strikes and how one is an act of terrorism and the other is a more effectual way to deal with an enemy like isis. Or undersranding how saying we should be less concerned with killing innocents and presumably doing so if you were in charge leads to more coverts to extremism.
Because the strategic bombing has gone so well this far right?
Quote:There are 8 million Muslims in the United States. Two of them shot up San Bernardino. So let's just throw out everything we stand for as a country in terms of religious freedom.
What is it that you think we stand for in regards to religious freedom? The idea of having robust vetting for people who come into this country doesn't violate the idea of a right to the free exercise there of.
Let's establish a religious test for entering the country, "until we can figure out what's going on," whatever that means.
Under current federal law the executive must take into account the religion of those seeking refuge in this country. That's why Christians are having a heck of a time getting into the country from Syria.
Let's just alienate 1.6 billion people worldwide and tell them they can't enter the country, can't come over and visit their relatives, can't go see the Grand Canyon, can't come over to go to engineering school at the University of Illinois. No American dream for you.
I can't buy into that.
1.) They're not citizens of this country to begin with so by definition its not a violation of the first amendment.
2.) we've said several times that the purpose of Trumps process is to develop a process by which we know whats going on, not a unilateral banning of people coming into the country, even he has admitted as much.
3.) You and your ilk have still expressed more outrage over a proposed temporary moratorium than you have about the fact that a female terrorist entered this country having to only file documents online. This process was allowed because she was to be wed to a man who in 2012 was suspected of conspiring to commit terrorist acts in this country and the subsequent investigation and surveillance was called off because it was deemed by the
Muslim Brotherhood Council on American Islamic Relations that it would be too politically incorrect to pursue him.
4.) This idea that some proposal on immigration would randomly motivate anyone to violence in and of itself is preposterous. Look at the Muslim world as a whole. What do you find? Religious tests. In certain countries that we count as allies if you walk down the street with a cross around your neck you run the risk of being beaten killed or worse (and yes, there is worse). you still are forbidden to express certain beliefs in those countries. If you leave the state mandated faith of islam you are put to death by stoning. You can't build Churches etc. etc. etc. Is this the pillar of egalitarian religious tolerance that the world is supposed to emulate? IT'S ABSURD!
Syed farook was the target of a terror investigation in 2012.
Tashfeen malik applied for k1 after it was streamlined by the obama administration in 09. The new process can be completed online.
Way to deflect the reality of muslim culture.
Quote:What we stand for now in this day in age Is now one of our biggest downfalls. We have to adjust to the times of today and the current problems we're facing. Today's problems aren't the same problems this nation had when our constitution was written. We have to adjust to today and todays enemies and once that is finally done and we've come up with a plan in place, then this nation can continue on, business as usual..
Agreed . Things aren't the same. In fact the argument regarding when the constitution was written, is an argument gun control advocates use by saying that when it was written, the modern day weapons that kill much more quickly and effectively didn't exist.
But the argument won't cease.
Quote:Syed farook was the target of a terror investigation in 2012.
Tashfeen malik applied for k1 after it was streamlined by the obama administration in 09. The new process can be completed online.
Way to deflect the reality of muslim culture.
Application for a K1 visa is not an online process.
Please provide a link to the 2012 investigation of Farook.
Not deflecting anything, merely challenging the veracity of your post, and pointing out that nobody has said we should emulate Muslim culture.
Quote:Application for a K1 visa is not an online process.
Please provide a link to the 2012 investigation of Farook.
Not deflecting anything, merely challenging the veracity of your post, and pointing out that nobody has said we should emulate Muslim culture.
You said specifically that a proposal in immigration policy would be used by terrorists as a recruiting tool in Muslim Culture.
I then point out that in reality Muslim Culture itself is openly, and un-repentantly hostile to western culture and criminalizes judeo-christian expression in their countries.
I never intimated that someone was proposing we emulate Muslim Culture. I am simply pointing out the absurdity that Someone saying that we should have a temporary ban on one religion strictly for the purposes of intelligence gathering should be offensive to a group of people that OUTLAW religions as a part of their daily lives.
We have been told that we have to be so conscious of our TONE and our WORDS while the leader of a Muslim nation we call our ally leads his citizens in chants of DEATH TO AMERICA and DEATH TO ISRAEL. The ideological masochism of the left is becoming plainly rediculus.
In the case of Tashfeen Malik, you have a process streamlined in 2009 where you download all the documents you need online, compile said documents, send them in, go through a cupcake interview and abra ka dabra your in the country.
They plainly missed, that she was someone who expressed radical views in her own country. It shouldn't have been hard because there were only 4 Saudi born applicants that year. We also missed the electronic communications that she had with her would be fiance. In a system that is inherently susceptible to fraud all communications should be available for review just to prove the veracity of a relationship, let alone having suspected terror ties.
In the case of Syed Farook, he was in the social circle of a cleric who was arrested in 2012 and recently sentenced to 25 years for Joining Al Queda. We now know that this was indeed his point of radicalization and he aborted his own planned attack because of the arrests of his handlers.
There was a separate probe into his Mosque and a group associated with it that included links to his accomplice/wife. That investigation was called off because of civil rights etc. etc. etc.
We should have been able to fully uncover the 2012 plot based on his affiliations with a known terrorist and at the very least he should have been on the no fly list and any application made from a country like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for a k-1 visa should have either been denied outright or treated as a potential link to terror and been scrutinized beyond the general course of business.
JJ the opposition to grumps ban on a religion jsnt because of how muslims will respond its because you are now concenting to giving the state the authority to ban a religion. Surely you can see why that is problematic for a nation with a constitution that explicitly defines religious freedom.
Trump dresses the pig real nice but in the end he's selling a much bigger state with the idea that the state should examine religion, I for one don't want the state examining anyone's religion for any reason at anytime.
Well at current, under federal law, the government is examining religious backgrounds to deny syrian christians entrt into the country.
Moreover the constitution doesnt support the RIGHT to migrate. Trump isnt proposing a ban on a religion hes proposing a temporary moratorium on migration of foreign nationals from a specific class that could potentially threaten the country.
Quote:You said specifically that a proposal in immigration policy would be used by terrorists as a recruiting tool in Muslim Culture.
I then point out that in reality Muslim Culture itself is openly, and un-repentantly hostile to western culture and criminalizes judeo-christian expression in their countries.
I never intimated that someone was proposing we emulate Muslim Culture. I am simply pointing out the absurdity that Someone saying that we should have a temporary ban on one religion strictly for the purposes of intelligence gathering should be offensive to a group of people that OUTLAW religions as a part of their daily lives.
We have been told that we have to be so conscious of our TONE and our WORDS while the leader of a Muslim nation we call our ally leads his citizens in chants of DEATH TO AMERICA and DEATH TO ISRAEL. The ideological masochism of the left is becoming plainly rediculus.
In the case of Tashfeen Malik, you have a process streamlined in 2009 where you download all the documents you need online, compile said documents, send them in, go through a cupcake interview and abra ka dabra your in the country.
They plainly missed, that she was someone who expressed radical views in her own country. It shouldn't have been hard because there were only 4 Saudi born applicants that year. We also missed the electronic communications that she had with her would be fiance. In a system that is inherently susceptible to fraud all communications should be available for review just to prove the veracity of a relationship, let alone having suspected terror ties.
In the case of Syed Farook, he was in the social circle of a cleric who was arrested in 2012 and recently sentenced to 25 years for Joining Al Queda. We now know that this was indeed his point of radicalization and he aborted his own planned attack because of the arrests of his handlers.
There was a separate probe into his Mosque and a group associated with it that included links to his accomplice/wife. That investigation was called off because of civil rights etc. etc. etc.
We should have been able to fully uncover the 2012 plot based on his affiliations with a known terrorist and at the very least he should have been on the no fly list and any application made from a country like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for a k-1 visa should have either been denied outright or treated as a potential link to terror and been scrutinized beyond the general course of business.
The point is not that Trump's proposal offends Muslims per se, but that it is used as a recruiting tool for jihadists. If you have doubts, check today's news.
I have intimate knowledge of the K1 visa process, and I assure you there's nothing abracadabra about it, and it cannot be completed online. Surely you don't think downloading the documents instead of going to a consulate and picking them up facilitated a terror attack.
You stated that Farook was investigated.
Quote:Syed farook was the target of a terror investigation in 2012.
That is simply not true. His ties to jihadists were only revealed after his cohort during that period was arrested and cooperated with the feds. Farook himself was not investigated.
Clearly, these two slipped through the cracks. I have no problem with tightening up the screening process. A blanket ban based on religion goes against everything upon which this country was founded, and when it doesn't work, and it won't because the biggest threat is domestically radicalized jihadists, it won't be long before someone tries to take it further.
So you agree that steps should be taken to know who the hell peope are. Thank u. Welcome to the home team.
Quote:So you agree that steps should be taken to know who the hell peope are. Thank u. Welcome to the home team.
I do not agree with one specific step proposed by Trump and supported by you. Welcome to truth and reading comprehension.
Quote:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ace-check/
We can agree to disagree on k1
That article is incorrect. A face to face interview of the applicant is required, background checks are performed. The services to which the article refers just do for applicants what they can do for themselves.
I'm all for agreeing to disagree.
But by agreeing to the fact that steps need to be taken you negate the need for the need or call for the step that you so detest.
Quote:But by agreeing to the fact that steps need to be taken you negate the need for the need or call for the step that you so detest.
Exactly, but what's your point? Is this Trump's Art of the Deal, offer the preposterous so the unreasonable seems ideal? I guess Trump is counting on all those gullible enough to keep him at the top of the Republican field buying into anything he sells.