Trump won' rule out database, special ID for Muslims

[aligncare]

Why in the hell do we need to "look good" on this issue?  For the sake of political correctness in lieu of American sovereignty and national security?

As Glenn Beck stated ... IF we do not stand against this ... we are ALL DEAD. It is that simple. Governor's of many states are standing against refugee resettlement, some of the DEMS are standing against this and the GOP is taking a stand against this. Yet Barry has decided to continue on with his plan of destroying this country. This is his final goal and I have no doubt that he has already cut a deal with the UN. I also don't doubt that regardless of the opposition by Congress, We the People and Governors of states he will continue even if it means these terrorists being escorted into our country by UN troops.

You miss the point of kevindavis' pushback: Trump said it. Period. TDS. End of etiology.

[sinkspur]

If we force people of a certain faith to carry special ID, track them & open a government agency espousing a favored faith, aren't we what we hate?

[aligncare]

If we force people of a certain faith to carry special ID, track them & open a government agency espousing a favored faith, aren't we what we hate?

No

[sinkspur]

You miss the point of kevindavis' pushback: Trump said it. Period. TDS. End of etiology.

No matter how outrageous Trump is you excuse it.

[sinkspur]

No

You've mortgaged your soul to the Orangutan.

[kevindavis007]

You miss the point of kevindavis' pushback: Trump said it. Period. TDS. End of etiology.

Sorry I don't people who has declared Bankruptcy 4 times, who likes to steal people properties via the Government or doesn't care to much for a limited Government. Also I take ithe as a compliment from someone who has Rubio Derrangement Syndrome. But hey I'd you support a person who will get butt whipped in the general election have at it
 

[Scottftlc]

Then why bring it up?

 I'll tell you why:  it makes his followers orgasmic.

Umm he DIDN'T bring it up - it was a question from the reporter that brought it up - the reporter asks: "will you rule out ---" and the response is always the same: "we won't rule out anything". It's been that way since reporters started asking that question - it is one of the basic "gotcha" questions reporters use to write a story the way they WANT to write the story, to create interest. Interpreting the question the way you are here we would have nuked Moscow, Peking, Teheran and Baghdad at least 1000 times each over the years. This is another mountain out of a molehill reporter-driven breathless pile of garbage.

[aligncare]

No matter how outrageous Trump is you excuse it.

What part of 10% of the world's Muslims want to slit your throat don't you understand? You know, it's completely logical, and in fact, sane, to have a proportional response to a national threat, without that response being the defining aspect of our national character.

I think that's called self-defense.

[kevindavis007]

What part of 10% of the world's Muslims want to slit your throat don't you understand? You know, it's completely logical, and in fact, sane, to have a proportional response to a national threat, without that response being the defining aspect of our national character.

I think that's called self-defense.

To hell with the Constitution right?

[ABX]

The US, for most of our history, had a unique view of rights. Rights were not granted, they were inherent based on your existence. You don't get some rights if you are of a certain class, other rights if you are of a certain faith, etc. Of course we've had failings on this, but it has been our general foundation. Your rights are based on you as an individual regardless of your beliefs or class. The only way those rights are stripped is if you specifically do something to relinquish them (ie commit a crime).  Having a belief is not a crime, no matter how henious that belief may be. It is the choice on how you act on that belief that is where the risk of losing rights may come into play.

Just believing in Mohammad, or hell, believing in Sharia law, is not justification for a citizen losing their rights unless they act upon those beliefs in a way that is criminal.  When we give the power to the government to start stripping rights based on nothing more than a thought or a belief, you give up the very foundation of our country.  That would be more than a slippery slope, that would be legal precident that would, of course, open the door to more and more.

Remember, who is it now the government classifies as domestic terrorists and the biggest threat?  Hint, they don't pray five times a day. 

[ABX]

What part of 10% of the world's Muslims want to slit your throat don't you understand? You know, it's completely logical, and in fact, sane, to have a proportional response to a national threat, without that response being the defining aspect of our national character.

I think that's called self-defense.

Our government has classified Christians, veterans, and the 'right wing' as the biggest domestic terrorist threat. Do you want to give the government this power, not based on actual action, but on a thought or belief? Do you really think they would stop with Muslims?

[ABX]

If we force people of a certain faith to carry special ID, track them & open a government agency espousing a favored faith, aren't we what we hate?

Bingo. They hate us for our liberty, so the worst thing we can do is give up our liberty. Stripping rights based on religious faith is actually one of the tenants of Sharia law.

[kevindavis007]

The US, for most of our history, had a unique view of rights. Rights were not granted, they were inherent based on your existence. You don't get some rights if you are of a certain class, other rights if you are of a certain faith, etc. Of course we've had failings on this, but it has been our general foundation. Your rights are based on you as an individual regardless of your beliefs or class. The only way those rights are stripped is if you specifically do something to relinquish them (ie commit a crime).  Having a belief is not a crime, no matter how henious that belief may be. It is the choice on how you act on that belief that is where the risk of losing rights may come into play.

Just believing in Mohammad, or hell, believing in Sharia law, is not justification for a citizen losing their rights unless they act upon those beliefs in a way that is criminal.  When we give the power to the government to start stripping rights based on nothing more than a thought or a belief, you give up the very foundation of our country.  That would be more than a slippery slope, that would be legal precident that would, of course, open the door to more and more.

Remember, who is it now the government classifies as domestic terrorists and the biggest threat?  Hint, they don't pray five times a day.

There are some people who love to do it to all Christians

[aligncare]

Our government has classified Christians, veterans, and the 'right wing' as the biggest domestic terrorist threat. Do you want to give the government this power, not based on actual action, but on a thought or belief? Do you really think they would stop with Muslims?

Yes. People are being paranoid.

Regardless what Obama says, we are STILL a Christian nation.

[alicewonders]

Would some people be having this response if somebody said this about Nazis?  A lot of Nazi members had families and out of fear of retaliation against their families and themselves - they submitted to the Nazi party.  You can humanize them too - but I wouldn't want to invite them into my home.  It's too hard to tell who the bad guys are.  Islam has a problem and they had better deal with it.  They are quickly becoming pariahs.

[EC]

Meh - no need to even dig up a Nazi.


"Trump won' rule out database, special ID for Muslims Gun Owners."

There. Justify that shit.

[ABX]

Yes. People are being paranoid.

Regardless what Obama says, we are STILL a Christian nation.

We are a free nation. Christianity's basis is freedom because you have to freely choose Christ, not be compelled, but with that freedom comes also the freedom to not choose Christ but choose another faith or lack thereof.  That's a big difference than having a state imposed theological orthodoxy.

[aligncare]

Would some people be having this response if somebody said this about Nazis?  A lot of Nazi members had families and out of fear of retaliation against their families and themselves - they submitted to the Nazi party.  You can humanize them too - but I wouldn't want to invite them into my home.  It's too hard to tell who the bad guys are.  Islam has a problem and they had better deal with it.  They are quickly becoming pariahs.

Exactly. We can't solve this. All we can do is defend ourselves. Muslim adherents have to lead the way to route out this virus of violent muslim fundamentalism. Yeah, you could say they have a PR problem.

[alicewonders]

What part of 10% of the world's Muslims want to slit your throat don't you understand? You know, it's completely logical, and in fact, sane, to have a proportional response to a national threat, without that response being the defining aspect of our national character.

I think that's called self-defense.

If 10% of Christians were beheading people that would not convert to Christianity, selling women and children into slavery, blowing up public places filled with innocent people, taking over whole cities............

This was a response to a question asked of Trump - there are extreme times of national emergency that such tactics would have to be taken.

It's called survival.

[sinkspur]

What part of 10% of the world's Muslims want to slit your throat don't you understand? You know, it's completely logical, and in fact, sane, to have a proportional response to a national threat, without that response being the defining aspect of our national character.

I think that's called self-defense.

Was quarantining innocent Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WWII a "defining aspect of our national character"?

[sinkspur]

Yes. People are being paranoid.

Regardless what Obama says, we are STILL a Christian nation.

I could have sworn there were some Jews here, too.

We are not, and never have been, a "Christian" nation. There was a time when Catholics were not considered Christians.  Many evangelicals still think that.

This dialogue with you has been very revealing.

[aligncare]

Was quarantining innocent Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WWII a "defining aspect of our national character"?

I haven't the time nor the desire to argue Korematsu with you. Have a nice day.

[sinkspur]

Would some people be having this response if somebody said this about Nazis?  A lot of Nazi members had families and out of fear of retaliation against their families and themselves - they submitted to the Nazi party.  You can humanize them too - but I wouldn't want to invite them into my home.  It's too hard to tell who the bad guys are.  Islam has a problem and they had better deal with it.  They are quickly becoming pariahs.

Only to the paranoid. 

"It's too hard to tell who the bad guys are?"  So they're all bad guys, right? 

Islam doesn't have a problem.  Some adherents of Islam do.

[sinkspur]

If 10% of Christians were beheading people that would not convert to Christianity, selling women and children into slavery, blowing up public places filled with innocent people, taking over whole cities............

This was a response to a question asked of Trump - there are extreme times of national emergency that such tactics would have to be taken.

It's called survival.

When was a "national emergency" declared.  I guess I missed it.

[kevindavis007]

I haven't the time nor the desire to argue Korematsu with you. Have a nice day.

That is a good question why don't you answer it?