Maybe we should just elect Trump president

hutch wrote:
I don't hate muslims at all… there is nothing hateful about saying that maybe we should consider slowing down the number of muslims we let into America because, you know, they seem to have some sort of problem with us so lets cool it a bit….

there is something quite hateful about saying that.  you can't discriminate against the 99.999% because there is an evil 0.001%.  
hutch wrote:
Carlos wrote:
hutch wrote:
some of these GIFs are too sophisticated for me…
Bigots do, generally, lack sophistication and refinement.


no recourse but name calling eh?

I do have a problem with muslims whose belief is jihad against America.. seems to me they are the bigots..I'd rather keep them out and err on the side of caution….






Again, how do you propose identifying and eliminating the targets of your policy?
sweetcell wrote:
hutch wrote:
I don't hate muslims at all… there is nothing hateful about saying that maybe we should consider slowing down the number of muslims we let into America because, you know, they seem to have some sort of problem with us so lets cool it a bit….

there is something quite hateful about saying that.  you can't discriminate against the 99.999% because there is an evil 0.001%.  


I think he already explained that immigration is a privilege, not a right. We're the one's providing the privilege, we make the rules.

Do you really think the evil is only 0.001%? As in only i in out of every 100,000 (foreign) Muslims are radical or hold sympathies with radical thought?  Al Jazeera would argue otherwise.

http://www.commdiginews.com/featured/al-jazeera-poll-suggests-81-of-arab-muslims-support-isis-42253/


Or how about this one?

Quarter of British Muslims sympathise with Charlie Hebdo terrorists
Some 27 per cent of British Muslims sympathise with Paris gunmen, while more than one in ten say satirical cartoons "deserve" to be attacked

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

If someone gave you a case of KBS and told you there were a couple of bottles with undetectable, letha1 doses of poison in them, would you discriminate against Founders and throw the who case away?
/
jaded wrote:
How do you screen for Muslim?  Do you just know them when you see them?  Do you rely on them to report their religion accurately?


Shibboleth
vansmack wrote:
jaded wrote:
How do you screen for Muslim?  Do you just know them when you see them?  Do you rely on them to report their religion accurately?


Shibboleth
POTW.
Carlos wrote:



Have your fat postings been permanently moved to this thread?

I'll bite on this one. Pierce Brosnan and Hugh Jackman both have wives that are not skinny.
Space wrote:
Have your fat postings been permanently moved to this thread?

Well, some people didn't like them in random thoughts. I figure the best compromise was I continue to post them in a way that interrupts the Hutch and Rhett Islamophobia Hour.

Space wrote:
I'll bite on this one. Pierce Brosnan and Hugh Jackman both have wives that are not skinny.
Don't let facts get in the way of fat people convincing themselves they're oppressed.
Carlos wrote:
Space wrote:
Have your fat postings been permanently moved to this thread?

Well, some people didn't like them in random thoughts. I figure the best compromise was I continue to post them in a way that interrupts the Hutch and Rhett Islamophobia Hour.

Space wrote:
I'll bite on this one. Pierce Brosnan and Hugh Jackman both have wives that are not skinny.
Don't let facts get in the way of fat people convincing themselves they're oppressed.


Well that's a novel and new form of censorship. Not sure how effective that is, but I'll give you creativity points. Typically genius Julian.

Another way to get opinions you don't like to go away is to offer some substantive counterpoints to convince your opponent that their opinion is incorrect.

Another option is to ignore the posts, eventually the person will realize they have no audience and stop posting. And even if they don't, they're being ignored, so what does it matter?
fas,cinating.
Space wrote:
Typically genius Julian.
Julian, purported typically GENIUS
sweetcell wrote:
hutch wrote:
I don't hate muslims at all… there is nothing hateful about saying that maybe we should consider slowing down the number of muslims we let into America because, you know, they seem to have some sort of problem with us so lets cool it a bit….

there is something quite hateful about saying that.  you can't discriminate against the 99.999% because there is an evil 0.001%.  

couldn't agree more
Sidehatch wrote:
sweetcell wrote:
hutch wrote:
I don't hate muslims at all… there is nothing hateful about saying that maybe we should consider slowing down the number of muslims we let into America because, you know, they seem to have some sort of problem with us so lets cool it a bit….

there is something quite hateful about saying that.  you can't discriminate against the 99.999% because there is an evil 0.001%.  

couldn't agree more


Do you get a quick rush from the feeling of moral superiority that making that post gives you?
nonsense.. our government discriminates against people all the time… or why do you think people from certain countries will now be scrutinized while people from others are not? you can say its not because of religion but there is a very very strong correlation..

what we can't do is discriminate against US citizens (the US constitution is pretty clear but it does not apply to Syrian nationals, etc.).. BTW what do you think happens when our drones drop bombs in Yemen, Pakistan or Syria?? Do you really think nobody around the targets dies??

there is a very naïve understanding by some people on this thread of how things work in the world…

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/08/visa-waiver-program-house-senate-europe/76978544/

personally I disagree with what Trump said not because I disagree entirely with what he said but because its just one of those things you don't say… its kind of like torture.. do I think the US government should never use torture? no.. but they should say they never use torture. in the same way our government should never admit it discriminates against foreign nationals based on their religion, country of origin,  etc.. but it will discriminate as it always has done… that is what granting visas/work permits/nationality is: one big discrimination

and I welcome a discussion about it within the context of trying to increase security in the US and lessen terrorist threats…..unfortunately the childish tone of liberals screaming comparisons between Hitler and Trump only serves to derail what could be a productive discussion.. Trump is Hitler now? Really? come on now.
Space wrote:
Sidehatch wrote:
sweetcell wrote:

there is something quite hateful about saying that.  you can't discriminate against the 99.999% because there is an evil 0.001%.  

couldn't agree more


Do you get a quick rush from the feeling of moral superiority that making that post gives you?


no I don't…but creating policies that punish people who are running away from persecution I can't agree with.
I'd much rather deal with the gun issue than ban Muslims from entering
and before what I wrote about torture gets taken out of context.. of course I do not like or wish for the USA to torture anybody.. but I cannot limit the government from utilizing it in every possible imaginable case.. I can't predict if there could be a case in the future where torture was necessary..

but the government should say "we don't torture, end of story" just like it should say "we don't discriminate on the basis of religion in awarding visas/work permits/citizenship" etc..

and it should try, as much as possible, to carry its business in accordance with those statements.. but if you have Saudi nationals coming to this country to kill us.. well, you might have to put a stop to that.. and some people who have no intention of harming us will be adversely affected too.. that is unfortunate..


hutch wrote:
Carlos wrote:
As diplomatically as you framed that, Hutch, stating religion should be a credulity test to enter the United States of America is appalling.

Well I don't think I exactly stated that Julian.

First of all, this is a discussion..there is nothing wrong with having it.

It doesn't have to be religion.. it can simply be most people from certain places who will of course happen to be of a certain religion…

This type of thing goes on all the time…
I guess my view is that what Trump said is rather boneheaded but there is an element of wisdom in it.. if you have a people from a certain group of people trying to harm you, well, you might have to take a look at placing limits on those people and that may have an adverse impact on the group of people as a whole… that is "discrimination" but the job of our government is to protect Americans not the "phantom rights" of non-Americans not to be discriminated against…. if you think how hard it is to migrate to this country I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about this routine type of discrimination…
Sidehatch wrote:
Space wrote:
Sidehatch wrote:
sweetcell wrote:

there is something quite hateful about saying that.  you can't discriminate against the 99.999% because there is an evil 0.001%.  

couldn't agree more


Do you get a quick rush from the feeling of moral superiority that making that post gives you?


no I don't…but creating policies that punish people who are running away from persecution I can't agree with.
I'd much rather deal with the gun issue than ban Muslims from entering


I don't think you'd get an argument from me regarding that. But prioritizing American safety by erring on the side of caution is hardly "hateful".

Hateful is the 76% of Muslims in South Asia who are in favor of apostasy.