User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 6:38:32 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Britain to Trump means to fart or spew shite as in, "I think I just trumped in me knickers"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 6:43:20 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Britain to Trump means to fart or spew shite You misspelled "shit". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 6:59:48 PM EST
[#3]
Trump is partially right. It would be impractical to ban all Muslim, but barring entry from certain countries would be a good start. Or just shut down all immigration for awhile to allow for assimilation of the bazillion South Americans that are here illegally... While we sort out the threat from Islamists.
Also you could probably identify a Muslim by showing them a picture of Mo humping a goat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:01:39 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so you got nothing. Which is what I thought. gee, it sounded so, serious, when you typed it out. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the most impressive accomplishment to date by Muslims in the US... was fucking 9/11. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:04:11 PM EST
[#5]
Someone should tell the LEFT, that the US Constitution does not cover non-Americans wishing to immigrate to the country to F@#^ it Up. America has a right to pick and choose who immigrates to America. Just like with any other country. The leadership of this country can stand up to terrorism and illegal immigration.......if it had the balls to.
Aloha, Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:04:37 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bloomberg Politics Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Likely GOP Primary Voters Back Trump's Muslim Ban Pollster for bloomberg then calls them bigots Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bloomberg Politics Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Likely GOP Primary Voters Back Trump's Muslim Ban Pollster for bloomberg then calls them bigots “We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” Doug Usher, who runs polling for Washington-based Purple Strategies, said in his analysis of the findings. "This indicates that, despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, this is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:14:19 PM EST
[#7]
At least the poll was a reasonable version of what he said.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:28:41 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People keep equating Trump's proposal to the American Japanese camps of WWII. What is that about? Did he propose something like internment camps? We should take the Pew Research, a good question like "do you think it is allowable to kill/execute apostates?" And then allow people to apply on a percent basis according to their country's polling numbers. If your country shows 89% say yes, then only 11% of people attempting to immigrate will even get in the queue. We need to manage the numbers somehow as everyone says the big problem is you can't vett these numbers with our system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:33:07 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone should tell the LEFT, that the US Constitution does not cover non-Americans wishing to immigrate to the country to F@#^ it Up. America has a right to pick and choose who immigrates to America. Just like with any other country. The leadership of this country can stand up to terrorism and illegal immigration.......if it had the balls to. Aloha, Mark The leadership cannot stand up to the US Chamber of Commerce (and their immigration demands.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:49:22 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The leadership cannot stand up to the US Chamber of Commerce (and their immigration demands.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Someone should tell the LEFT, that the US Constitution does not cover non-Americans wishing to immigrate to the country to F@#^ it Up. America has a right to pick and choose who immigrates to America. Just like with any other country. The leadership of this country can stand up to terrorism and illegal immigration.......if it had the balls to. Aloha, Mark The leadership cannot stand up to the US Chamber of Commerce (and their immigration demands.) The founding document outlines that ALL men have natural rights. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this. Our values outlined in our founding document apply to ALL men. The constitution does not "grant" these rights to "special" people. It recognizes the fact that ALL men have them, and that government cannot be used to ethically violate them. So even "illegals" have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to self-defense, private property rights, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:55:37 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The founding document outlines that ALL men have natural rights. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this. Our values outlined in our founding document apply to ALL men. The constitution does not "grant" these rights to "special" people. It recognizes the fact that ALL men have them, and that government cannot be used to ethically violate them. So even "illegals" have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to self-defense, private property rights, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone should tell the LEFT, that the US Constitution does not cover non-Americans wishing to immigrate to the country to F@#^ it Up. America has a right to pick and choose who immigrates to America. Just like with any other country. The leadership of this country can stand up to terrorism and illegal immigration.......if it had the balls to. Aloha, Mark The leadership cannot stand up to the US Chamber of Commerce (and their immigration demands.) The founding document outlines that ALL men have natural rights. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this. Our values outlined in our founding document apply to ALL men. The constitution does not "grant" these rights to "special" people. It recognizes the fact that ALL men have them, and that government cannot be used to ethically violate them. So even "illegals" have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to self-defense, private property rights, etc. Not among those rights, however, is the right to move here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:55:39 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The founding document outlines that ALL men have natural rights. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this. Our values outlined in our founding document apply to ALL men. The constitution does not "grant" these rights to "special" people. It recognizes the fact that ALL men have them, and that government cannot be used to ethically violate them. So even "illegals" have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to self-defense, private property rights, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone should tell the LEFT, that the US Constitution does not cover non-Americans wishing to immigrate to the country to F@#^ it Up. America has a right to pick and choose who immigrates to America. Just like with any other country. The leadership of this country can stand up to terrorism and illegal immigration.......if it had the balls to. Aloha, Mark The leadership cannot stand up to the US Chamber of Commerce (and their immigration demands.) The founding document outlines that ALL men have natural rights. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this. Our values outlined in our founding document apply to ALL men. The constitution does not "grant" these rights to "special" people. It recognizes the fact that ALL men have them, and that government cannot be used to ethically violate them. So even "illegals" have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to self-defense, private property rights, etc. but we have no requirement to let ANYBODY into the country. Those wonderful muslim would be immigrants retain the same rights they had before they tried to come here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 7:58:34 PM EST
[#13]
Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:01:03 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible. right. so if it isn't 100% guaranteed, fuck it. Only solutions that are 100% guaranteed to work should be considered. Until then, status quo. the smarter solution is to simply ban immigrants by country, but it would kinda suck for the actual minorities that are being slaughtered. but we aren't bring them in anyway so really nothing would change except fewer jihadis. ¡JEB! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:06:18 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
right. so if it isn't 100% guaranteed, fuck it. Only solutions that are 100% guaranteed to work should be considered. Until then, status quo. the smarter solution is to simply ban immigrants by country, but it would kinda suck for the actual minorities that are being slaughtered. but we aren't bring them in anyway so really nothing would change except fewer jihadis. ¡JEB! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible. right. so if it isn't 100% guaranteed, fuck it. Only solutions that are 100% guaranteed to work should be considered. Until then, status quo. the smarter solution is to simply ban immigrants by country, but it would kinda suck for the actual minorities that are being slaughtered. but we aren't bring them in anyway so really nothing would change except fewer jihadis. ¡JEB! I have to wonder... do you feel like you're persuading anyone? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:09:23 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have to wonder... do you feel like you're persuading anyone? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible. right. so if it isn't 100% guaranteed, fuck it. Only solutions that are 100% guaranteed to work should be considered. Until then, status quo. the smarter solution is to simply ban immigrants by country, but it would kinda suck for the actual minorities that are being slaughtered. but we aren't bring them in anyway so really nothing would change except fewer jihadis. ¡JEB! I have to wonder... do you feel like you're persuading anyone? I would hope so.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:11:54 PM EST
[#17]
apologies if this was posted earlier
worth the read |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:11:55 PM EST
[#18]
Trump is on O Reilly right now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:15:53 PM EST
[#19]
Here's the potential (and not unlikely) disaster for those Trump fans still clinging.
Try to separate the fun of hearing Trump going completely against the political grain. Have some fucking vision of how that can seriously backfire. The potential to fracture the GOP vote is very real....and if that does happen, get ready for Hilary....because she'll be in the White House. If you can't see that, and the potential consequences......I don't know what to tell you.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:15:55 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible. If it were to become policy, just the fact that the policy EXISTED would prevent most of them from even bothering. People are lazy and don't look to circumvent barriers unless they have a real reason to. Let's say Canada banned Republicans from the United States from going to Canada. Would you be like "I'll show those milk bagging, Maple leaf flagged Canadian cocksuckers what's what! I'll lie on my visa application and claim to be a card carrying member of a newly revitalized Whig party just so I can get into their shitty country and smugly walk around knowing I pulled a fast one." Of course not, you would just say "Fuck those stupid bastards, who the fuck wants to go to Canada anyway." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:25:43 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it were to become policy, just the fact that the policy EXISTED would prevent most of them from even bothering. People are lazy and don't look to circumvent barriers unless they have a real reason to. Let's say Canada banned Republicans from the United States from going to Canada. Would you be like "I'll show those milk bagging, Maple leaf flagged Canadian cocksuckers what's what! I'll lie on my visa application and claim to be a card carrying member of a newly revitalized Whig party just so I can get into their shitty country and smugly walk around knowing I pulled a fast one." Of course not, you would just say "Fuck those stupid bastards, who the fuck wants to go to Canada anyway." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible. If it were to become policy, just the fact that the policy EXISTED would prevent most of them from even bothering. People are lazy and don't look to circumvent barriers unless they have a real reason to. Let's say Canada banned Republicans from the United States from going to Canada. Would you be like "I'll show those milk bagging, Maple leaf flagged Canadian cocksuckers what's what! I'll lie on my visa application and claim to be a card carrying member of a newly revitalized Whig party just so I can get into their shitty country and smugly walk around knowing I pulled a fast one." Of course not, you would just say "Fuck those stupid bastards, who the fuck wants to go to Canada anyway." According to estimates the US Government has 47,000 people on the no-fly list. Now, according to some this list is impossible (too difficult) or un-cnstitutional, or both. Obama wants to use it to take 2nd Amendment rights from (yes, law-abiding) citizens yet it's a proposal to vett foreign visitors and/or immigrants (hopefully BEFORE they get here) that has Trump watchers vexed.? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:29:41 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to wonder... do you feel like you're persuading anyone? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible. right. so if it isn't 100% guaranteed, fuck it. Only solutions that are 100% guaranteed to work should be considered. Until then, status quo. the smarter solution is to simply ban immigrants by country, but it would kinda suck for the actual minorities that are being slaughtered. but we aren't bring them in anyway so really nothing would change except fewer jihadis. ¡JEB! I have to wonder... do you feel like you're persuading anyone? I keep pimping for ¡Jeb! but his poll numbers are going nowhere. guess not. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 8:59:31 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bill Gates and the Democrat Establishment. They'll call it Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality, The People's Internet Bill Gates Backs Washington Initiative That Would End Private Property Rights Gun Ownership http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/11/15/bill-gates-backing-initiative-to-eliminate-private-gun-sales-in-washington-state/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It doesn't. He criticized the quote I posted, with the quote I posted... Ok, lets go about it another way...your way of saying it is crappy ...hows that..what Trump is saying is we need to stop terrorist from openly communicating /recruiting american kids over the internet from the ME..and yes if its possible to do that with the with technology we should be doing that.. no different then trying to stop pedophiles...the way you phrase it makes it sound like instead he just wants to completely shutdown the internet.. but of course you knew that...and thats why you did it that way... It's not. China can't do it with their Great Firewall. Trump can't do it with his Great Whatever. Bill Gates and the Democrat Establishment. They'll call it Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality, The People's Internet Bill Gates Backs Washington Initiative That Would End Private Property Rights Gun Ownership http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/11/15/bill-gates-backing-initiative-to-eliminate-private-gun-sales-in-washington-state/ Billionaires are still subject to physics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 9:30:40 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
right. so if it isn't 100% guaranteed, fuck it. Only solutions that are 100% guaranteed to work should be considered. Until then, status quo. the smarter solution is to simply ban immigrants by country, but it would kinda suck for the actual minorities that are being slaughtered. but we aren't bring them in anyway so really nothing would change except fewer jihadis. ¡JEB! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible. right. so if it isn't 100% guaranteed, fuck it. Only solutions that are 100% guaranteed to work should be considered. Until then, status quo. the smarter solution is to simply ban immigrants by country, but it would kinda suck for the actual minorities that are being slaughtered. but we aren't bring them in anyway so really nothing would change except fewer jihadis. ¡JEB! The country ban is smart. It would be doable. The worldwide Muslim ban is stupid. It won't work. It's not just that it's not 100% effective. It would require a massive expansion of government, a new agency capable of so many investigations. And even then, it would be totally ineffective at keeping terrorists out. It would be a shining example of the "status quote"; bloated, expensive and ineffective. And terrorists would not be deterred one bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 9:36:26 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The country ban is smart. It would be doable. The worldwide Muslim ban is stupid. It won't work. It's not just that it's not 100% effective. It would require a massive expansion of government, a new agency capable of so many investigations. And even then, it would be totally ineffective at keeping terrorists out. It would be a shining example of the "status quote"; bloated, expensive and ineffective. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible. right. so if it isn't 100% guaranteed, fuck it. Only solutions that are 100% guaranteed to work should be considered. Until then, status quo. the smarter solution is to simply ban immigrants by country, but it would kinda suck for the actual minorities that are being slaughtered. but we aren't bring them in anyway so really nothing would change except fewer jihadis. ¡JEB! The country ban is smart. It would be doable. The worldwide Muslim ban is stupid. It won't work. It's not just that it's not 100% effective. It would require a massive expansion of government, a new agency capable of so many investigations. And even then, it would be totally ineffective at keeping terrorists out. It would be a shining example of the "status quote"; bloated, expensive and ineffective. not really. It would be a simple question. More to the point, the guy floats an idea in a speech. He forwarded a legitimate, albiet extreme idea to combat a legitimate problem. we do not vet immigrants properly. 9-11 proves this, as does several other instances. and you have first generation americans from immigrant communitees. this is a problem that needs to be fixed. he didn't say permanently. he said until we can fix the problem. Its legitimate and legal. the debate is feasibility. but its quite clear that the democrats, and the majority of republicans see no problem with our immigration situation. trump does. and thats why he is leading in the polls. a vetted muslim immigrant killed 14 americans a week ago. every indicator, in hindsight, shows that she was a risk. first step, do no more damage. stop letting them in. My proposal is that every one desiring entrance into the US for anything more than a tourist visa undergo a TS level investigation at their own expense. big world out there. other countries can take the refuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 9:43:42 PM EST
[#26]
There is no way in hell that 50% of likely voters oppose ending Muslim immigration. None.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:01:10 PM EST
[#27]
Breitbart has some good info on this subject: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/09/why-trumps-winning-9-things-the-dc-media-wont-tell-you-about-islam/
Also, during World War 2, we banned Japanese and Germans from entering the country: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/09/flashback-fdr-suspends-japanese-german-immigration-executive-order/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:11:33 PM EST
[#28]
Fucking hilarious.
Trump appears to say something off the cuff. The media picks up on it and attempts to twist it into a dumb and insane comment. An old man spewing racist blubber. Standard operating procedure for them. Then it turns out that not only would it be constitutional, but the law is already on the books and has been used before. Used by immortal democrat presidents, even. This has happened a few times. No way is this shit luck or coincidence. Trump is playing the left and its sycophants like a dime store harmonica. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:12:21 PM EST
[#29]
From tonight.
Lou Dobbs & Stuart Varney Weigh In Donald Trump On O'Reilly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4aBvFdVK8s  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:15:13 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fucking hilarious. Trump appears to say something off the cuff. The media picks up on it and attempts to twist it into a dumb and insane comment. An old man spewing racist blubber. Standard operating procedure for them. Then it turns out that not only would it be constitutional, but the law is already on the books and has been used before. Used by immortal democrat presidents, even. This has happened a few times. No way is this shit luck or coincidence. Trump is playing the left and its sycophants like a dime store harmonica. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:20:32 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The founding document outlines that ALL men have natural rights. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this. Our values outlined in our founding document apply to ALL men. The constitution does not "grant" these rights to "special" people. It recognizes the fact that ALL men have them, and that government cannot be used to ethically violate them. So even "illegals" have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to self-defense, private property rights, etc. Not unless they become US citizens. They have ZERO right to enter the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:20:53 PM EST
[#32]
I heard on Fox tonight that after Trumps comment on the muslim temp ban his poll numbers went up in Iowa 8% lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:23:29 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can't see that, and the potential consequences......I don't know what to tell you.
The other scenario is that Trump is elected president since Hillary is a witch and the US is fundamentally changed back to what it was before the muslim Kenyan started his destruction of America. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:25:33 PM EST
[#34]
Three new Trump threads every hour on arfcom.
Nonstop discussion on the internet. Nonstop discussion in the media. Everyone talking about him as if he's already president. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:36:21 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does anyone need passports? Do you hate minimum government maximum freedom and the Constitution? We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing. https://www.lp.org/issues/privacy Then don't get one. You will never fly overseas except to perhaps Puerto Rico. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:38:30 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fucking hilarious. Trump appears to say something off the cuff. The media picks up on it and attempts to twist it into a dumb and insane comment. An old man spewing racist blubber. Standard operating procedure for them. Then it turns out that not only would it be constitutional, but the law is already on the books and has been used before. Used by immortal democrat presidents, even. This has happened a few times. No way is this shit luck or coincidence. Trump is playing the left and its sycophants like a dime store harmonica. There are a lot of pundits who think Trump is dumb, no one gets to be a billionaire and be stupid. I love that no matter how hard the left and the establishment GOP try to discredit him. He just keeps going , and gets more popular. After the last 16 years we really need a strong president who can make America great again. I can say with certainty that its not a democrat or one of the officially sanctioned GOP candidates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:40:49 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Expect to get called out on that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
15 pages... Trump is playing to his base. They love this kind of rhetoric. But that's all it is, rhetoric. First, we have to get past the idea of barring people, based solely on religion, from entering the country. Considering America's history, and principles, that is a HUGE hurdle. I'm not sure I'm ready to surrender my principles to terrorist. After we get past this, and accept the nastiness of it, then we run into all sorts of practical problems. Cincinnatus and others have asked some very good questions, and I can't find any good answers. 1. How are you going to screen for religion? What's the process, how many resources and how much money will be dedicated to the process? 2. How are you going to explain this to your Muslim allies, diplomats, business and trading partners, ...the 1.5 billion or so Muslims who aren't radical terrorist. Trump is a showman, and a pretty slick salesman. He's playing to the lowest common denominator of his angry base, and they seem to be eating it up. But at the end of the day, this kind of rhetoric doesn't win general elections. This kind of comment will eventually bite him. Expect to get called out on that. Exactly. Circa 2012 there were about 1.6 billion people who adhere to the muslim ideology. I would not be surprised if at least 30% support killing Americans and other Westerners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 10:51:57 PM EST
[#38]
Today's news (may not be factual) is that both of the muslim ideology murderers reportedly were planning on killing before they met and were married.
The male and his AR15 buying buddy may have planned on a massacre several years ago. If these are true we have an American born muslim ideology male who follows his ideology by planning on killing Americans. That same male finds an ugly muslim ideology female in Saudi Arabia, brings here to the US on a fiance visa. Our government vetting process cannot determine that she is probably ready to kill Americans before she arrives in the USA. Trump is right. Of course I was calling for stopping all entry to the USA by people who believe the muslim ideology weeks before Trump did. I have stated that European countries need to do the same. Kick out any non-citizen muslim ideology believers otherwise their country will be destroyed and additional citizens killed in the future by those who accept that ideology. Muslim ideology is incompatible with Western cultures/counties. In my opinion, people who scoff at that are enablers of those who will kill Westerners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 11:12:02 PM EST
[#39]
BRITISH police officers have today sensationally backed Donald |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 11:21:42 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My proposal is that every one desiring entrance into the US for anything more than a tourist visa undergo a TS level investigation at their own expense. big world out there. other countries can take the refuse. So for folks coming over on business visas? A TS investigation? Of a foreigner? Would Americans count as "foreign contacts"? Would investments in the US be foreign investments? Would we send OPM investigators into foreign countries to ask people is the applicant was a Muslim? That's as good an idea as Trump's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 11:42:09 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I honestly think Trump is surprised at his popularity. I don't think he really wants to be President, and I think as we get closer to the convention he'll ramp up his radical rhetoric. IF by some chance he wins the nomination, he will have won it on perhaps one of the most "unAmerican strongman platforms" in our nations history. It's disconcerting that he has gotten this far, and in my opinion doesn't bode well for the nation. But I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning a general election. I don't think he wants it. I think IF he wins the party nomination, he'll simply ramp up his rhetoric until he eliminates himself from the running. Then he'll be able to go back to being who and what he is, a slick, narcissistic salesman, and showman building a "brand". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
15 pages... Trump is playing to his base. They love this kind of rhetoric. But that's all it is, rhetoric. First, we have to get past the idea of barring people, based solely on religion, from entering the country. Considering America's history, and principles, that is a HUGE hurdle. I'm not sure I'm ready to surrender my principles to terrorist. After we get past this, and accept the nastiness of it, then we run into all sorts of practical problems. Cincinnatus and others have asked some very good questions, and I can't find any good answers. 1. How are you going to screen for religion? What's the process, how many resources and how much money will be dedicated to the process? 2. How are you going to explain this to your Muslim allies, diplomats, business and trading partners, ...the 1.5 billion or so Muslims who aren't radical terrorist. Trump is a showman, and a pretty slick salesman. He's playing to the lowest common denominator of his angry base, and they seem to be eating it up. But at the end of the day, this kind of rhetoric doesn't win general elections. This kind of comment will eventually bite him. The resources do not exist to successfully vet everyone coming to this country. Heck, the resources don't exist to successfully vet the current crop of "refugees." I honestly think Trump is surprised at his popularity. I don't think he really wants to be President, and I think as we get closer to the convention he'll ramp up his radical rhetoric. IF by some chance he wins the nomination, he will have won it on perhaps one of the most "unAmerican strongman platforms" in our nations history. It's disconcerting that he has gotten this far, and in my opinion doesn't bode well for the nation. But I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning a general election. I don't think he wants it. I think IF he wins the party nomination, he'll simply ramp up his rhetoric until he eliminates himself from the running. Then he'll be able to go back to being who and what he is, a slick, narcissistic salesman, and showman building a "brand". My feelings as well. He is working for the dems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 11:45:26 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LONG RANT ABOUT HOW BORDER CONTROL IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE EXCISED Those are just some of the preliminary questions that will need to be answered in the most basic of scoping exercises to be in a position to start considering the viability of the proposal. You're right, we should just continue as usual and let any swinging dick (or cunt) into the country. Because that's worked out splendidly so far. It's worked great for the UK as well: Free to stroll through Britain’s cities, this is the al-Qaeda cleric suspected of radicalising “Jihadi John”. And let's not forget "Jihadi John" was a first-generation Muslim immigrant who grew up in the UK. He was 6 when he moved there, grew up to be a wonderful asset for ISIS. But you're right. We shouldn't even bother. Too many details. Way too hard. Probably racist, too. Let's just roll over and give up, hand over the keys. I for one welcome our new overlords. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 11:46:21 PM EST
[#43]
Which is more important, the security of the US or the feelings of people who want to kill us and dismantle our way of life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 11:57:40 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These are the same motherfuckers claiming that we can accept Syrians without fear because of their "thorough vetting process." So which is it, you contradictory hypocritical fuckwits? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Game over man...the libtards say there is no way to tell who is a Muslim, we have to let everyone in anyway...lets all hold hands and sing we like to give the world a Coke These are the same motherfuckers claiming that we can accept Syrians without fear because of their "thorough vetting process." So which is it, you contradictory hypocritical fuckwits? lol Surely you don't believe this thorough vetting process includes their religious or political beliefs? Or real name? Or country of origin? Or anything else of substance? There's no way these thoroughly vetted widows and orphans would ever lie. Good point, though. The "let's roll over and give up" contingent here, which is especially vocal recently, seems to think that opening our borders and letting any fuckstain through is perfectly acceptable, presumably because we're "thoroughly vetting them." Yet it's absolutely impossible to determine what religion said fuckstains are. The logical disconnect would probably bug them if they actually gave a shit and weren't trying to score political points. Or furthering a more sinister agenda. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:08:40 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Bloomberg Politics Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Likely GOP Primary Voters Back Trump's Muslim Ban Pollster for bloomberg then calls them bigots "We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” Doug Usher, who runs polling for Washington-based Purple Strategies, said in his analysis of the findings. "This indicates that, despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, this is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign." http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iiF0kSjBk5jQ/v1/-1x-1.jpg So disliking a religion that advocates for killing you is now bigotry. Ok, got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:18:43 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The founding document outlines that ALL men have natural rights. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this. Our values outlined in our founding document apply to ALL men. The constitution does not "grant" these rights to "special" people. It recognizes the fact that ALL men have them, and that government cannot be used to ethically violate them. So even "illegals" have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to self-defense, private property rights, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Someone should tell the LEFT, that the US Constitution does not cover non-Americans wishing to immigrate to the country to F@#^ it Up. America has a right to pick and choose who immigrates to America. Just like with any other country. The leadership of this country can stand up to terrorism and illegal immigration.......if it had the balls to. Aloha, Mark The leadership cannot stand up to the US Chamber of Commerce (and their immigration demands.) The founding document outlines that ALL men have natural rights. Some of you guys don't seem to understand this. Our values outlined in our founding document apply to ALL men. The constitution does not "grant" these rights to "special" people. It recognizes the fact that ALL men have them, and that government cannot be used to ethically violate them. So even "illegals" have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to self-defense, private property rights, etc. I agree that inalienable rights apply to everyone. BUT, just as one should have freedom of association, the entire nation should be able to be free from associating with potentially dangerous people. If private property ownership is a right, should not national sovereignty be a right of "the people"? In other words, just because everyone has inalienable rights, doesn't mean that america is obligated to allow the entire oppressed world in so that they can have the free exercise of those rights. Our founders fought and died for these rights. Let the rest of the world fight and die for theirs. A thing earned is cherished more than a thing given. If as a nation we have the right of self defense, why can we not defend ourselves by excluding potentially dangerous people? At some point a line must be drawn where altruism becomes so detrimental as to endanger our national culture, identity, traditions, and our very lives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:21:53 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here's the potential (and not unlikely) disaster for those Trump fans still clinging. Trump doesn't get the nomination. His bombastic, hyper-emotional, poorly delivered, poorly thought out, polarizing rants catch up to him. It's already begun BIG TIME. Trump is not going to back down or honor that pledge. He'll state all bets are off because he was treated unfairly. Trump will run as an Independant. The GOP nominee and Trump split the republican vote. Hilary wins the election by a wide margin. That decade long AWB? Guess what? It's coming back and there will be no sunset this time. Amnesty, taxes, stifling regulation, socialism creep, continued castration of the military, Obama Part II. Once a full blown amnesty POTUS gets elected and has both houses once again, the demographic pendulum will be permanently a fixed to the left. Period. Done. Let's not forget the final nail in the American coffin pending such an outcome. The SCOTUS goes completely social activist with more young, socialist/Marxist judges. Game, set, match. Seriously folks, if you're not seeing the above unfolding, you're living (dangerously) in Lala Land. He was fun to watch, shook things up, spoke bombastically about non-PC stuff. It was fun....at first. Now? He's a threat and a very serious one at that. Try to separate the fun of hearing Trump going completely against the political grain. Have some fucking vision of how that can seriously backfire. The potential to fracture the GOP vote is very real....and if that does happen, get ready for Hilary....because she'll be in the White House. If you can't see that, and the potential consequences......I don't know what to tell you. Save your speech for the GOP delegates, who are the people your message really need to be directed at. Make sure they know that if they nominates some jackass like jeb they are fucking themselves and all the rest of us. Don't blame the voters. ETA: Come to think of it, if polling leading up to the election indicated that the conservative vote was divided enough by Trump running 3rd party, the only responsible thing the GOP could do would be to resign their candidacy so the vote would be consolidated against hillary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:42:34 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The resources do not exist to successfully vet everyone coming to this country. Heck, the resources don't exist to successfully vet the current crop of "refugees." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
15 pages... Trump is playing to his base. They love this kind of rhetoric. But that's all it is, rhetoric. First, we have to get past the idea of barring people, based solely on religion, from entering the country. Considering America's history, and principles, that is a HUGE hurdle. I'm not sure I'm ready to surrender my principles to terrorist. After we get past this, and accept the nastiness of it, then we run into all sorts of practical problems. Cincinnatus and others have asked some very good questions, and I can't find any good answers. 1. How are you going to screen for religion? What's the process, how many resources and how much money will be dedicated to the process? 2. How are you going to explain this to your Muslim allies, diplomats, business and trading partners, ...the 1.5 billion or so Muslims who aren't radical terrorist. Trump is a showman, and a pretty slick salesman. He's playing to the lowest common denominator of his angry base, and they seem to be eating it up. But at the end of the day, this kind of rhetoric doesn't win general elections. This kind of comment will eventually bite him. The resources do not exist to successfully vet everyone coming to this country. Heck, the resources don't exist to successfully vet the current crop of "refugees." You're finally getting the point. Congratulations. I'm glad we agree. Close the immigration valve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:43:35 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Save your speech for the GOP delegates, who are the people your message really need to be directed at. Make sure they know that if they nominates some jackass like jeb they are fucking themselves and all the rest of us. Don't blame the voters. ETA: Come to think of it, if polling leading up to the election indicated that the conservative vote was divided enough by Trump running 3rd party, the only responsible thing the GOP could do would be to resign their candidacy so the vote would be consolidated against hillary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Here's the potential (and not unlikely) disaster for those Trump fans still clinging. Trump doesn't get the nomination. His bombastic, hyper-emotional, poorly delivered, poorly thought out, polarizing rants catch up to him. It's already begun BIG TIME. Trump is not going to back down or honor that pledge. He'll state all bets are off because he was treated unfairly. Trump will run as an Independant. The GOP nominee and Trump split the republican vote. Hilary wins the election by a wide margin. That decade long AWB? Guess what? It's coming back and there will be no sunset this time. Amnesty, taxes, stifling regulation, socialism creep, continued castration of the military, Obama Part II. Once a full blown amnesty POTUS gets elected and has both houses once again, the demographic pendulum will be permanently a fixed to the left. Period. Done. Let's not forget the final nail in the American coffin pending such an outcome. The SCOTUS goes completely social activist with more young, socialist/Marxist judges. Game, set, match. Seriously folks, if you're not seeing the above unfolding, you're living (dangerously) in Lala Land. He was fun to watch, shook things up, spoke bombastically about non-PC stuff. It was fun....at first. Now? He's a threat and a very serious one at that. Try to separate the fun of hearing Trump going completely against the political grain. Have some fucking vision of how that can seriously backfire. The potential to fracture the GOP vote is very real....and if that does happen, get ready for Hilary....because she'll be in the White House. If you can't see that, and the potential consequences......I don't know what to tell you. Save your speech for the GOP delegates, who are the people your message really need to be directed at. Make sure they know that if they nominates some jackass like jeb they are fucking themselves and all the rest of us. Don't blame the voters. ETA: Come to think of it, if polling leading up to the election indicated that the conservative vote was divided enough by Trump running 3rd party, the only responsible thing the GOP could do would be to resign their candidacy so the vote would be consolidated against hillary. Cliff's Notes from reality: If Trump doesn't get the nomination and runs as an Independant, Hilary will easily become the next President. The GOP is not withdrawing their nominee. An absurd thought to phrase it politely. Nobody likes Bush. Nobody mentioned Bush. Doesn't matter who the nominee is for the GOP......if it's not Trump and he runs as an Independent, it's game fuckin over.....and that's not an unlikely scenario. His ego would never believe he'd lose as an Independent, he'd run. And he'd split the vote, lose, and usher in Hilary on a silver platter. We'd all lose.....and to an extent I'm pretty sure you're not grasping the incredible gravity of. If he gets the nomination, he's got my full support. If he doesn't and runs as an independent, he should have his head held under water until no more bubbles come up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:52:08 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those are just a few examples that I researched within 10 minutes. I am sure there are a lot more, like the "Operation Wetback" by Dwight D. Eisenhower. I would also like to remind everyone about a law currently on the books; Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. To quote this law: As you can see here, the United States has already discriminated entry based on race, national origin, speech, ideology, sexual preference, and health. This was done within accordance to United States law. Nothing illegal! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those are just a few examples that I researched within 10 minutes. I am sure there are a lot more, like the "Operation Wetback" by Dwight D. Eisenhower. I would also like to remind everyone about a law currently on the books; Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. To quote this law: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. As you can see here, the United States has already discriminated entry based on race, national origin, speech, ideology, sexual preference, and health. This was done within accordance to United States law. Nothing illegal! Excellent post. You found a few examples of the "impossible, no way it can be done" immigration controls I wasn't aware of. Not only can it be done, it has been done. Multiple times in American history. Only thing I'd add to your list is the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
