Then I guess it's safe to allow anyone from the US into our countries in Europe because not all them use guns to "protect" themselves.

Then I guess it's safe to allow anyone from the US into our countries in Europe because not all them use guns to "protect" themselves.

Which is why the people of Europe are the prime targets of Jihadis, they're NOT allowed to protect themselves.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Then I guess it's safe to allow anyone from the US into our countries in Europe because not all them use guns to "protect" themselves.

Which is why the people of Europe are the prime targets of Jihadis, they're NOT allowed to protect themselves.

Guns against Jihadist suicide bombers don't work.
Not even in the US.

Guns against Jihadist suicide bombers don't work.
Not even in the US.

And you will never know for sure because you aren't allowed to try.


"We have to let the Syrians in before we can tell if they are Terrorist.....

Charlie Hebdo: GUNS used by Jihadis.

Paris: GUNS used by Jihadis.

The only people NOT able to use GUNS are the 'Law Abiding' Euro Citizens.............

And maybe Europe SHOULD ban all Americans from visiting.........the loss of US tourist $ will stimulate your economies right into the ground even faster.

@ Clyde, I don't think stoning or honor killing is legal anywhere in the US..............

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Ozzfan,

Yes, it is a far-fetched conclusion. Not all worshippers of Allah (if you want the G capitalized in God, you should respect Allah as well, unless that would highlight your xenophobia) interpret the Koran the same way, much like not all Christians interpret the Bible the same way. It is not a safe conclusion to assume that all worshippers of Allah or the belief of that god is somehow incompatible with our Constitution.

Then I guess it's safe to allow anyone from Libya into our country because not all Libyans want to throw homosexuals off roofs.

Then I guess it's safe to allow anyone from Syria into our country because not all Syrians want to marry girls younger than 18 years old.

Then I guess it's safe to allow anyone from Saudi Arabia into our country because not all Saudis believe in the death penalty for those leaving Islam.

Then I guess it's safe to allow anyone from Nigeria into our country because not all Nigerians believe in monogamy.

Then I guess it's safe to allow anyone from Pakistan into our country because not all Pakistanis believe it's bad to beat your wife.

Yes, all correct. It is not OK to prevent entry to entire groups of people because of a generalization about their country or culture. If they're the type that prefers to live within those rules, why would they leave and come here? It stands to reason they if they come here they want to get away from that, yet you claim they want to bring that culture here based upon no evidence whatsoever.

Background checks should filter out most of the bad apples, but some will still get past such things. The legal system can handle the rest on an individual basis. Again, it is not OK to discriminate against entire groups because of stereotyping of their overall cultures.

I could go on and start listing constitutional amendments which are incompatible with the koran/sharia law.

Indeed. And I could post amendments that are incompatible with the Bible that Christians want to overturn.

I could also list some items in our constitution BASED ON the BIBLE.

Wrong. You can list items in our Constitution that the Christian faithful believe were derived from the Bible because they choose to interpret it that way.

But,

somehow I doubt you're listening and nothing I say will get through to you at all.

Indeed. So how many Muslims do you know personally?

The only people NOT able to use GUNS are the 'Law Abiding' Euro Citizens.............

Nonsense.
We have both a police and an army who are very able to use guns.
And yes, we are 'Law Abiding' despite the fact that most citizens here have guns.
The terrorist threat is however a minute problem considering all other threats in life.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding of US immigration.

There have been limits/quotas applied to countries of origin since even before the Immigration Act of 1924 (revised in 1954).
The reasons for the limits was a complicated formula of original parentage of natural born citizens vrs. people born outside the US.
However, the Immigration Act of 1990 has now equalized the quotas applied to specific countries and replaced it with one total annual number.
The 1954 revision allowed for complete bans on certain countries as seen fit. That still holds today.
The inability of a specific country to supply documentation can be one of those reasons for an imigration ban but can also be a reason to allow safe haven for political refugees.

Thanks for jumping in Johnny. (See what I did there? :) )

I don't think the discussion is based upon a misunderstanding of immigration, though certainly you bring much needed definition to the discussion. I am not completely against the current immigration system, complete with it's annual quota, though I'm sure there are parts that could use a re-thinking for our time.

The problem is that Guy (Socialism Kills) is perfectly OK with preventing people from entering the country simply because they are from a country that has ties to domestic or international terrorism - namely those from the Muslim religion. He doesn't like the pejorative label of xenophobia when applied to himself, nor does he want to come to grips with that part of himself. He's trying to rationalize away his position through fear, stereotyping, and nationalism, as well as good old fashioned religious hatred.

I believe the xenophobia, like all fear and hateful positions, needs to be countered and prevented from becoming normalized in civilized society. However, I don't disagree with exercising caution as long as the same rules apply to all immigrants no matter their background.

Do you even know what the meaning of post-truth is?

Of course not, that would be post-truth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics

a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.

A long winded way of saying "alternate reality" like acid.

---

Is it far fetched to come to the conclusion that those who follow the word of allah (as per the koran) is *incompatible* with those who follow the rule of law (as per our constitution)?

LOL!

Is claiming sharia law incompatible with U.S. law what you call xenophobia?

LOL!

Are you claiming that the U.S. should allow all people from all of the world free access into our country without any type of background check?

LOL!

Are you claiming that anything other than allowing anybody from anywhere in the world to come across our borders and set up all the problems they claimed to be running from here in the states... is xenophobia?

LOL!

Are you claiming that if we control our borders in any form or fashion, we are not the U.S.A.? We are Nazis?

LOL!

Just WTH are you saying?

Don't you know? I'm coming for your way of life. DEAL WITH IT cry-baby sore-winner. LOLLOLLOL!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

In the U.S.A., would a U.S. citizen be allowed to burn the flags of Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R.? I want to buy one of each and make a video of me burning them. Maybe a Confederate flag, too, for good measure? :) Can this get me a year in jail or loss of my citizenship?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

The only people NOT able to use GUNS are the 'Law Abiding' Euro Citizens.............

Nonsense.
We have both a police and an army who are very able to use guns.
And yes, we are 'Law Abiding' despite the fact that most citizens here have guns.
The terrorist threat is however a minute problem considering all other threats in life.

Why not take a video of you shooting your gun? Reference Seti@Home as you speak in your video. That way, he'll know it's you. :)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Oh dear, Tim Marshall won't like that :-(

He's got a new book out "Worth Dying For: The power & politics of flags" :-)

Ozzfan,
Oh, I see. You heard Trump say (and I paraphrase), "ban all immigration from certain countries..."

Nope. I'm basing this conversation off statements I've seen you post in the past.

And that's when liberals (like you) go into a psychosomatic fits of rage saying things like hateful, Nazi and xenophobia and start using terms like "post-truth" which is nothing more than projection now that you're on the losing side of the isle.

Ohhh... I see what you're doing here. In your unending denial you must now attempt to turn the discussion around by claiming projection on our part. That's OK, I got broad shoulders.

It's difficult to have an open, enlightening dialogue when the folks you're trying to get clarification from hallucinate about things and think I said things I actually did not say. I may have to promote you to my ignore list if you keep this up.

You haven't asked for clarification. All you've done is setup strawman arguments. If you want clarification, try asking in a more neutral way.

Let me finish Trump's statement...

"...until we get a handle on what's going on."

The fact that you agree with the first part of Trump's statement at all, even with your ending modifier here, still indicates roots in xenophobia.

So, I'll ask one more time... is it xenophobia to try to get a handle on our immigration?

And I'll answer one more time: yes, based upon the rationalizations and strawman questions you've given so far, the answer is yes. BTW, how many Muslim immigrants do you know personally that are trying to bring Sharia Law or all their problems here?

bobby,

I could most likely find 15 names of people you've never heard of that you disagree with also. Can I then call you ignorant?

I did not call you ignorant, though it seemed to me your comments about the 15 certainly seemed to be from a position of ignorance (to paraphrase "because I don't recognize the 15, they are no-names, and it is only snowflakes from the left that would find anything the 15 authored objectionable").

As for whether you can call me ignorant, of course you can, just as I would be free to criticize such a comment as an ad hominem attack.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

most post-truth-ism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cnn-trump-supporters-voters_us_58405e9ee4b09e21702d3bc0

“If you trace the thread back, there is always some nugget that gives them their false impression,” Camerota said after the interview. “But they didn’t trace back enough to see it had been discredited and debunked.”

---

Let me go ahead and give you a definitive answer to your question, " How many Muslim immigrants do I know personally that are trying to bring Sharia Law or all their problems here?"
NONE! (thank God it hasn't gotten that bad yet and thank GOD Trump is going to PREVENT IT FROM GETTING THAT BAD!)
Edit: You are obviously unaware of what's happening in Paris and London these days.

Which means that you have met Muslim immigrants that don't practice Sharia laws.
I'm unaware of what's happening in Paris and London these days.
Please enlight me!

Ozzfan, based on the wiki definition of post-truth, it *is* nothing more than projection. Liberals have been making choices, decisions and judgement based on nothing more than feelings and emotions disconnected from reality, details and facts for decades. It's the reason Trump won this election.

And there you go again, saying I agree with Trump's first statement and implying the rest of it does not matter to me means I'm xenophobic. I give up. You're just throwing temper tantrums and are venting.

Trump won. Get over it. At least you have Chuck You! Schumer promising to impede, obstruct and prevent anything positive from happening in the next 4 years.

And I guess that's all you plan on doing also in here. Let me just try to finish this by accepting that you are going to disagree with anyone who doesn't want to centralize all power and control into the hands of unconvicted felons, live by a separate set of rules, promote the downfall of the USA and won't be happy until the earth is scorched so you can keep blaming people who tried to prevent it.

I have no idea what you're on about, but based upon these far flung assertions of my position, attitude, and even my demeanor, I can only conclude you're making these claims in an attempt to further take the heat off yourself in this discussion. Best defense is a strong offense, right? Again, I have broad shoulders. (This is very clearly written by someone whose "throwing a temper tantrum and venting" LOL)

Let me go ahead and give you a definitive answer to your question, " How many Muslim immigrants do I know personally that are trying to bring Sharia Law or all their problems here?"

NONE! (thank God it hasn't gotten that bad yet and thank GOD Trump is going to PREVENT IT FROM GETTING THAT BAD!)

Thanks for answering the question. Now we know that you do not base your position in observable facts but in the continuing post-truth media you obviously get your information from.

Edit: You are obviously unaware of what's happening in Paris and London these days.

LOL! Obviously. If I did, I'd agree with your positions, right? I'd validate your fears and concerns, and share them with you, right?