Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bomb explosion in New York.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    I know damn well what the words mean. I questioned your arrogance on deciding what can threaten my existence. You don't know what the next madman is capable of.


    That is you overreacting and creating strawmen and red herrings.
    I do, and I can guarantee you that they do not directly threaten our existence as a nation.

    False....again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    It means a threat that doesn't threaten our existence, terrorism isn't able to threaten our existence. It can cause a few casualties and cause mass fear and hysteria. Hardly a reason to scrap the Constitution. Before overreacting, perhaps a quick Google search?
    I know damn well what the words mean. I questioned your arrogance on deciding what can threaten my existence. You don't know what the next madman is capable of.

    Ask the poster who advocated eliminating Islam as a religion and taking away their Constitutional religious rights.

    Again, in reference to the poster who wishes for us to legally outlaw one specific religion.
    That is you overreacting and creating strawmen and red herrings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    They're definitely not an existential threat.

    Don't try to put words in my mouth. I hate both of the barbaric bronze age religions equally. I just don't support insane discrimination based on who believes in what sort of magic.
    Again you show your ignorance, Christianity was soundly in the iron age...

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Country of origin and in the case of Islam, religious politics. Unlike any other modern, major religion Islam, politics, and economics are intertwined within that religion. In many cases, you can't separate the religion from the politics.
    For example an adherent of Sharia law should be suspect as an immigrant. After all, here you have someone who wants to mix government and religion intimately.
    The question here is, Are we screening on the basis of religion or political views?



    The US didn't take all that many Jewish refugees in that period. Most of the ones taken had specific skills or the means to immigrate. Aside from that they were being taken on the basis of racial persecution not religious. That's the problem with Judaism. It is both a race and a religion intimately intermixed.
    Aside from that, the second Germany and Italy declared war a sizable number of their citizens and even recent immigrants to the US were rounded up and put in internment camps. Some stayed in those camps into the early 1950's too.
    You can, that's the point. We don't put religious tests in place, but we also shouldn't allow anyone linked to terrorism into the country. We allow anarchists in our country, therefore we also don't do political tests.

    The example stands. We are all human, when innocents flee from murderous fools, the humanistic thing to do is care for them and allow them a place to be safe. Either they can live here or return to Syria when it is not a war zone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by VinceW View Post
    You're the one that mentioned Christians as the most important threat when they haven't been any problem to any country.
    False. Quote the post.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Screen immigration? Sure, we already do that fairly extensively, but we can improve on it. Screen based on religion? No thanks.
    Country of origin and in the case of Islam, religious politics. Unlike any other modern, major religion Islam, politics, and economics are intertwined within that religion. In many cases, you can't separate the religion from the politics.
    For example an adherent of Sharia law should be suspect as an immigrant. After all, here you have someone who wants to mix government and religion intimately.
    The question here is, Are we screening on the basis of religion or political views?

    So you would also argue against taking Jewish refugees in WW2 because their loyalty could be to their home country? That is your exact argument. Apply your below argument to Jewish refugees again and try to rethink your position. We ended up giving them citizenship or a new country.
    The US didn't take all that many Jewish refugees in that period. Most of the ones taken had specific skills or the means to immigrate. Aside from that they were being taken on the basis of racial persecution not religious. That's the problem with Judaism. It is both a race and a religion intimately intermixed.
    Aside from that, the second Germany and Italy declared war a sizable number of their citizens and even recent immigrants to the US were rounded up and put in internment camps. Some stayed in those camps into the early 1950's too.

    Leave a comment:


  • VinceW
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    They're definitely not an existential threat.

    Don't try to put words in my mouth. I hate both of the barbaric bronze age religions equally. I just don't support insane discrimination based on who believes in what sort of magic.
    You're the one that mentioned Christians as the most important threat when they haven't been any problem to any country.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by VinceW View Post
    They're a threat no matter how much you wish they haven't been and still are and will be for the foreseeable future and it shows your bias against White people like it is with all lefties and liberals that you're are still zeroed in on Christians who are predominantly White despite the fact that it's Muslims who have been carrying out most terrorist attacks in our countries.
    You're all a part of the problem as well good for Britain or rather England for showing us leadership now to start dealing with this problem.
    They're definitely not an existential threat.

    Don't try to put words in my mouth. I hate both of the barbaric bronze age religions equally. I just don't support insane discrimination based on who believes in what sort of magic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    What the hell is a nonexistential threat?

    This has to the either the most gullible or the most disingenuous statement ever posted seriously here. Even the virulent Muslim apologists have never said there was a nonexistent threat of terrorism.


    What persecution are you talking about besides for Muslims persecuting each other and other religions in the Middle East and South Asia?


    Who wants to stomp out religions? Are you admitting that Islam is violent? Where are the Christian terrorist groups in this country?
    It means a threat that doesn't threaten our existence, terrorism isn't able to threaten our existence. It can cause a few casualties and cause mass fear and hysteria. Hardly a reason to scrap the Constitution. Before overreacting, perhaps a quick Google search?

    Ask the poster who advocated eliminating Islam as a religion and taking away their Constitutional religious rights.

    Again, in reference to the poster who wishes for us to legally outlaw one specific religion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Again, no thanks. I'll gladly keep my rights instead of giving them up because of the nonexistential threat of terrorism.
    What the hell is a nonexistential threat?

    This has to the either the most gullible or the most disingenuous statement ever posted seriously here. Even the virulent Muslim apologists have never said there was a nonexistent threat of terrorism.

    I don't condone persecution based on religion either,
    What persecution are you talking about besides for Muslims persecuting each other and other religions in the Middle East and South Asia?

    because if we're to start stamping out violent religions Christianity is right up there on that list.
    Who wants to stomp out religions? Are you admitting that Islam is violent? Where are the Christian terrorist groups in this country?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Screen immigration? Sure, we already do that fairly extensively, but we can improve on it. Screen based on religion? No thanks.

    So you would also argue against taking Jewish refugees in WW2 because their loyalty could be to their home country? That is your exact argument. Apply your below argument to Jewish refugees again and try to rethink your position. We ended up giving them citizenship or a new country.
    Um study history much? We didn't take in many of them in during ww2.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...957324/?no-ist

    Histrionics is a bad method of debate...

    his∑tri∑on∑ic
    ˌhistrēˈšnik/
    noun
    plural noun: histrionics
    1.
    exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention.
    "discussions around the issue have been based as much in histrionics as in history"
    synonyms:dramatics, theatrics, tantrums; More

    Leave a comment:


  • VinceW
    replied
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    Again, no thanks. I'll gladly keep my rights instead of giving them up because of the nonexistential threat of terrorism. I don't condone persecution based on religion either, because if we're to start stamping out violent religions Christianity is right up there on that list.
    They're a threat no matter how much you wish they haven't been and still are and will be for the foreseeable future and it shows your bias against White people like it is with all lefties and liberals that you're are still zeroed in on Christians who are predominantly White despite the fact that it's Muslims who have been carrying out most terrorist attacks in our countries.
    You're all a part of the problem as well good for Britain or rather England for showing us leadership now to start dealing with this problem.
    Last edited by VinceW; 19 Sep 16, 21:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I'm not a Christian, but I do think that radical Islamic terrorism and warfare is a sufficient problem we should ban most or all immigration from parts of the world and nations where that sort of thing is rampant. For example, we shouldn't be taking Syrian refugees. That's akin to taking say, Italian or Hungarian refugees during WW 2.
    Why risk having some terrorists in the mix?

    Besides, why is the US's responsibility to take refugees from a civil war in another nation? We have zero reason to be doing that. It's sort of saying "Gee, there's a war in your country so we'll let you come here and become a citizen of our country..." rather than "Gee, there's a war in your country. Maybe you should get involved and end that puppy and get a stable, decent government..."

    Muslims have nothing special coming just because their own house is a total $h!+ hole made in large part by the same refugees wanting to leave.
    Screen immigration? Sure, we already do that fairly extensively, but we can improve on it. Screen based on religion? No thanks.

    So you would also argue against taking Jewish refugees in WW2 because their loyalty could be to their home country? That is your exact argument. Apply your below argument to Jewish refugees again and try to rethink your position. We ended up giving them citizenship or a new country.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delenda estRoma
    replied
    Originally posted by VinceW View Post
    Aggressively going after violent Muslims isn't wrong blindly following a countries Constitution isn't possible and is foolish when fighting an enemy external or internal ones it's not strength to do so when fighting a war like for example to keep bringing in immigrants from the enemies country or countries.
    Again, no thanks. I'll gladly keep my rights instead of giving them up because of the nonexistential threat of terrorism. I don't condone persecution based on religion either, because if we're to start stamping out violent religions Christianity is right up there on that list.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    That's not the problem. The problem is grouping all Muslims together.
    No, the problem is that some of the Muslims are killing us. And when they succeed they convince other Muslims that they are winning the war.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X