You're calling a duck a bird.

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's still a bird, right?

 

I'm not in favor of basing immigration decisions on someone's religion, but if a country is producing terrorists, we shouldn't be allowing its people into our country. As long as everyone in that country is refused entry, then there's not a whole lot to claim discrimination on.

---

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's still a bird, right?

 

I'm not in favor of basing immigration decisions on someone's religion, but if a country is producing terrorists, we shouldn't be allowing its people into our country. As long as everyone in that country is refused entry, then there's not a whole lot to claim discrimination on.

Problem is, I bet there are at least a handful of "terrorists" in every country, so theoretically we would not be letting anyone in.  

---

We learned in the Sunday School who made the sun shine through.  I know who made the moonshine too, back where I come from.

Problem is, I bet there are at least a handful of "terrorists" in every country, so theoretically we would not be letting anyone in.  

It would be a judgment call, and a tough one, and it would almost certainly have to be based on known terror activity, known terror groups present, political unrest, maybe even falling back on some of those super secret nonexistent "classified reports" that are occasionally used to justify a controversial action that's unjustifiable.

 

From a purely political point of view, and from the standpoint of not wanting to piss the world off at you anymore than they already are, the best solution is to block off entire countries. Particularly the problematic ones. Beyond my obvious moral, ethical, Constitutional and political objections to rejecting an entire religion, I think it would be infinitely easier and more effective to block off entire countries instead.

---

ahahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

haahha

 

Ew. Are they mating now?

---

Ew. Are they mating now?

If you believe that poll, Trump is certainly getting it up there.

---

How do you vet someone with no history beyond a birth certificate that may or may not be accurate and dubious claims about who they are, where they live and what they do?

 

Blocking immigration from a country is practical. Blocking immigration from a religion is not.

 

you just did.

---

It's put up or shut up time.  I can understand anyone disagreeing with trump's proposal.  That's your right.  Anyone who wants to stand on their soapbox and decry that this is biggotted or ignorant has to tell us in detail how the fundamental tenants of Sharia Law are comparable with Western culture/values and the explicit protections for Dar Al Harb in said Law.  

---

It's put up or shut up time.  I can understand anyone disagreeing with trump's proposal.  That's your right.  Anyone who wants to stand on their soapbox and decry that this is biggotted or ignorant has to tell us in detail how the fundamental tenants of Sharia Law are comparable with Western culture/values and the explicit protections for Dar Al Harb in said Law.  

How pleased with yourself were you after you wrote this? 

---

How pleased with yourself were you after you wrote this? 

 

Do you disagree with him?

---

Do you disagree with him?

I don't understand his question....

 

He's asking about a law that worshipers of Islam abide by and the protections they're granted because of the law? I don't get how that needs to be broken down in regards to disagreeing that we should ban Muslims per Trumps recommendation. 

 

You can't disagree with what Trump is proposing because of the Sharia Law?

---

I don't understand his question....

 

He's asking about a law that worshipers of Islam abide by and the protections they're granted because of the law? I don't get how that needs to be broken down in regards to disagreeing that we should ban Muslims per Trumps recommendation. 

 

You can't disagree with what Trump is proposing because of the Sharia Law?

 

The overwhelming majority of Muslims internationally support Sharia law. The majority of Muslims in America support Sharia law over the Constitution. Sharia law calls for murder against non-believers, murder of homosexuals, and oppression of women. Sharia law is an extremist position. Sharia law is embedded within the Islamic religion.

 

Trump is saying that we must pause Islamic immigration until we can accurately sort the non-extremist Muslims from the extremist Muslims. Cruz and Paul are saying that we must pause immigration of Islamic nations until we can do the same things.

 

I agree with either of those two positions.

---

Minorcan doesn't know what shariah law is, she doesnt know what Dar Al Harb is (house of war). You can tell this by the answer or lack there of.


Under islamic law the world is bifercated into the house of islam Dar al Islam and the house of war Dar al Harb. Under shariah muslims are commanded politically and militarily to make war eith dar al harb in diverse ways. Under shariah non followers have no protections or rights.


15 years after 911 we should all know this. The fact that we are still operating at the platitudinal level is an illustratiom that we are a stupid country

---

Minorcan doesn't know what shariah law is, she doesnt know what Dar Al Harb is (house of war). You can tell this by the answer or lack there of.


Under islamic law the world is bifercated into the house of islam Dar al Islam and the house of war Dar al Harb. Under shariah muslims are commanded politically and militarily to make war eith dar al harb in diverse ways. Under shariah non followers have no protections or rights.


15 years after 911 we should all know this. The fact that we are still operating at the platitudinal level is an illustratiom that we are a stupid country

I actually do know what it is. Because I don't agree with you on your assertions (or lack thereof), doesn't mean I'm ignorant to it. I could tell in the way you worded your question you were more concerned as coming off as an intellectual than actually having a debate about a politicians stance. This was why I said how pleased you must be with yourself. 

 

You're asking for everyone who disagrees with his proposal to offer the burden of proof as to why they feel that way. This isn't a court of law, it's a message board. People may have their opinions without having to jump through your heavy handed inquisition as to why they feel the way they do. 

---

I also never said it was bigoted, I happen to think it's impossible. 

---

You referred to dar al harb as followers of sharia in your response to my question. That is factually incorrect.


More over the idea that in the face of this threat we would blankly accept that we dont know who the hell is coming into the country is the real absurdity.

---

I also never said it was bigoted, I happen to think it's impossible. 

 

If you could filter 80% of radical Muslims coming into the country by implementing a temporary pause on all Muslim immigration until a more effective system is created, would you?

 

Obviously 100% is not reachable (yet), but for you, what percentage would be acceptable?

---

Glenn Beck wrote a book that came out a few months ago that relates to the recent discussion in this thread.  Because of the COC,  I'm not going to post the link or discuss details of the book.   But it's a book that can be easily found on the Internet.   Even if you aren't a fan of Glenn Beck,  it's worth reading this book to get a better idea of the landscape the United States and the West in general is dealing with.   It's a book that is supported by facts.

---

You referred to dar al harb as followers of sharia in your response to my question. That is factually incorrect.


More over the idea that in the face of this threat we would blankly accept that we dont know who the hell is coming into the country is the real absurdity.

No, I didn't say that dar al harb is the followers of sharia. Re-read it. I said people who are followers of Ismal are followers of this law.

---

If you could filter 80% of radical Muslims coming into the country by implementing a temporary pause on all Muslim immigration until a more effective system is created, would you?

 

Obviously 100% is not reachable (yet), but for you, what percentage would be acceptable?

I would love to be able to limit the amount of radicals that come into this country, but he wants to limit Muslims period. I know there's no way to tell which are radical or not, but it's a ridiculous notion in the first place. 

---

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's still a bird, right?

 

I'm not in favor of basing immigration decisions on someone's religion, but if a country is producing terrorists, we shouldn't be allowing its people into our country. As long as everyone in that country is refused entry, then there's not a whole lot to claim discrimination on.

What if its an eagle?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S259QYLFbXM

---

Blakes Life Matters