Religion of peace strikes again [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

ReelinRod

11-01-2017, 09:07 PM

58 people dead and 546 injured. in Vegas

White House officials insisted it was “premature” to discuss politics and dismissed calls to re-evaluate gun legislation.

how sad

Sad is the thought that you, I presume an American, can put on the same plane of equivalency, questioning the entry of non-citizens with zero claim to be here, with restricting the rights of US citizens with knee-jerk laws that everyone agrees would not have stopped that or damn near any shooting.

In a few short weeks the gun control fire in the belly of the Democrats in Congress has already died. Do you really want to have the conversation or are you just virtue signalling?

If you really want to discuss gun legislation please, go ahead and start a thread and set out specifically what gun laws you want to see enacted and what you expect from each law.

I know you are not at all interested in having the conversation.

ReelinRod

11-01-2017, 09:10 PM

I said this on 10\4 after Vegas shooting

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing.

And as if on Cue look at the responses from Trump and His followers .. I d say its amazing but its just predictable

Wicked smaht you are.

Slipknot

11-01-2017, 09:20 PM

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based.
calling for political solutions in response to terrorist attacks, particularly those committed by Muslims.

Chuck Schumer ✔@SenSchumer
I guess it's not too soon to politicize a tragedy.
8:37 AM - Nov 1, 2017

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!

58 people dead and 546 injured. in Vegas

White House officials insisted it was “premature” to discuss politics and dismissed calls to re-evaluate gun legislation.

how sad

First of all it’s not a tragedy
It’s an ATROCITY!

Sometimes the truth hurts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

11-01-2017, 09:25 PM

Soda kills more americans than muslim terrorists. :gu:

Obesity and a long list of other things kill more than any radical Muslim terrorist has post 9-11 in the USA, the pharma's and doctors handing out pain killers like candy are doing more harm for God's sake. Obviously 9-11 was a wake-up call, but since then pick one on the list and it's likely going to be well ahead of anything like this nut job or his replacement driving the next weapon in vogue are going to do on average.

I see both points made here, but 8 people in NY vs the Vegas killings are night and day different in number killed, in the shear terror involved for all in the vicinity and in the reactions of politicians after. It's so easy to jump on board the better vetting band wagon and trust me, I'm 100% behind those efforts. Trump loves an opportunity to continue beating his campaign drum and as usual someone always gets thrown under the buss in the process.

Post 9-11 the home grown nut job who should have received mental help for whatever reason, be it abusive father, lost job, cheating wife, loss of a family, bullied every day in school, ex con cant make it outside and with access to plenty of high powered fire arms is likely going to kill more easily, flying under the radar and with a higher death toll. It ALL needs to be addressed, man do I hate politics and I hate where we are as a nation right now; very depressing at times.

Thank god for activities to decompress like fishing, golf, headphones and some good tunes. Kiss your wife, your girlfriend, your kids and your grand kids; let's hope the proverbial sh*t doesn't hit the fan overseas and in our own backyard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

Slipknot

11-01-2017, 09:26 PM

zimmy

11-01-2017, 09:27 PM

When I breezed by this on my way to the classifieds, i thought this thread was about Charlottesville. Silly me

Slipknot

11-01-2017, 09:28 PM

Soda kills more americans than muslim terrorists. :gu:

So do doctors
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

11-01-2017, 09:32 PM

wdmso

11-02-2017, 03:53 AM

Wicked smaht you are.

Smart enough to see Murder is murder reguardless on the motivation

And smart enough to understand that Conservatives care more about who did the killing when it fits their anti Immigration agenda

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I

Diversity Visa Lottery Program, started in 1995 550 k a year
To qualify, applicants must have a high school education or two years in an occupation that requires formal training. Those who meet eligibility requirements are selected at random from a computer lottery.

Jeff Flake ✔@JeffFlake
Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there https://twitter

your up to speed on 2a issues and arguments I suggest you broaden your reading .. its easy being a 1 trick pony

wdmso

11-02-2017, 04:03 AM

IT'S ok - Spence knows all these folks are what makes the Amercian Dream.

Sadly there is a concern if you dig deeper into the issues. 99.9% may never be a problem, though a lower percentage will integrate, hopefully improving in subsequent generations. But some bad eggs will get in. Is it worth it?

Cars kill more people than soda. So what?

For many conservatives its worth it as long as those bad eggs are not Muslim or Mexcian. whole streets in Fall river still speak Portuguese they have moved ti where the french used to live and now other immigrants live where the Portuguese started ..

many Americans have never seen or experienced how integration works like urban Americans .. rural Americans Have the right who explains it ..

The Dad Fisherman

11-02-2017, 07:05 AM

Soda kills more americans than muslim terrorists. :gu:

I just tried to see if I could google any articles about like "35 killed when man opens shaken can of soda in crowded plaza" didn't find a single one.

I'd also bet that nobody here would have a problem with suicide vests if they just stood in the middle of an open field, alone, when they pressed the button too...

Jim in CT

11-02-2017, 08:59 AM

after NY terrorist attack

Fox news Ingraham: We demand our elected officials keep America safe
We should not lose one more American life because politicians don't have the nerve or the will to do what's necessary to secure the homeland.

Didn't see this concern about to keeping America safe after vegas

I said this on 10\4 after Vegas shooting

Why is it when we have a terrorist event in United States we expect the federal government to do something ( travel ban) but when we have a mass shooting ( not a Muslim) we don't want The government to do anything.. it's perplexing.

And as if on Cue look at the responses from Trump and His followers .. I d say its amazing but its just predictable

Aren't you somebody who criticizes others for justifying bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior? Yet you are doing it here.

But you are 100% correct, it's amazingly hypocritical for conservatives to attack liberals for using the Vegas attack to advocate for gun control, and then do the same thing by using this terror attack to advocate for immigration security.

There is nothing wrong, in the wake of any tragedy, to advocate for policies that would make another tragedy less likely. Both sides do it, yet each side acts as if only the other side does it. It's stupid.

I don't get how any sane person can be opposed to our being aggressive and vigilant in the war on terror. Nor do I get how any sane person can think that the second amendment is absolute. Each of those two extreme positions, defies common sense.

Jim in CT

11-02-2017, 09:01 AM

Soda kills more americans than muslim terrorists. :gu:

Soda, car accidents, and smoking all probably kill more than jihadists. But people make free choices to drink soda, to drive, and to smoke. Nobody asks to get run over by a truck in a public place. That is a very, very weak analogy.

Jim in CT

11-02-2017, 09:01 AM

I'd also bet that nobody here would have a problem with suicide vests if they just stood in the middle of an open field, alone, when they pressed the button too...

I, for one, have no quarrel with that notion.

Jim in CT

11-02-2017, 09:06 AM

. But some bad eggs will get in. Is it worth it?

?

No.

The candy analogy works for me. If I put 100 skittles in a bowl, and tell Spence that 1 is poisoned, will he let his family eat any? Nope.

It is tragic for the majority who are good people, to get lumped in with a few really bad eggs. But the reality is what it is. Better to help them make their home countries, a place they don't want to flee from. Unfortunately that's no small task either.

What a Godforsaken mess.

Jim in CT

11-02-2017, 09:08 AM

with restricting the rights of US citizens with knee-jerk laws that everyone agrees would not have stopped that or damn near any shooting.

I know you are not at all interested in having the conversation.

I'll have it.

I know of no law that would have completely prevented the Vegas shooting. But if bump stocks were illegal, the body count might well have been a lot lower. He shot 600 people. One of the first cops on the scene was a combat vet, and he radioed in that it sounded like a belt fed machine gun.

Just because you can't guarantee a body count of zero, doesn't mean you don't try to do what you can.

The Dad Fisherman

11-02-2017, 09:22 AM

But if bump stocks were illegal, the body count might well have been a lot lower.

Just because they are illegal, doesn't mean people won't have them.

now that people are aware of the technology....they'll be making them in their garage. Looks like a very simple item to make.

detbuch

11-02-2017, 10:14 AM

Smart enough to see Murder is murder reguardless on the motivation

You sound a more like a "conservative" with this statement. Progressives insist that we must understand why people kill. They go through tortuous investigations to know why terrorists and mass murderers and serial killers and familycides (just made that word up), and all sorts of killings occur. The idea being that it might help in preventing future killings. So far, in spite of the analyses, the killings continue. A rural redneck is more likely to view murder the way you do than a Progressive would

And smart enough to understand that Conservatives care more about who did the killing when it fits their anti Immigration agenda

I am not aware of some "Conservative" agenda to end immigration. Please inform about it.

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The terrorist came into our country through what is called the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program," a Chuck Schumer beauty. I

Diversity Visa Lottery Program, started in 1995 550 k a year
To qualify, applicants must have a high school education or two years in an occupation that requires formal training. Those who meet eligibility requirements are selected at random from a computer lottery.

Jeff Flake ✔@JeffFlake
Actually, the Gang of 8, including @SenSchumer, did away with the Diversity Visa Program as part of broader reforms. I know, I was there https://twitter

your up to speed on 2a issues and arguments I suggest you broaden your reading .. its easy being a 1 trick pony

Don't know why your twitter links disassociate Schumer from the program. Some broader reading of various opinions have different views, such as:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/01/schumer-champions-diversity-visa-excellent-program/

The Dad Fisherman

11-02-2017, 10:34 AM

And smart enough to understand that Conservatives care more about who did the killing when it fits their anti Immigration agenda

didn't know they had an Anti-immigration agenda.

They have a Pro-Increased Security and Improved Vetting agenda.

Maybe they have an Anti-ILLEGAL-Immigration agenda. Maybe that's where you are getting confused.

but never knew they had an Anti-Immigration agenda.

JohnR

11-02-2017, 02:53 PM

Going back, my family thought the same thing about the Irish, and Catholics in general. Actually, I am pretty sure they didn't think it was worth it.

I am OK with it within reason. I don't like the Irish or Italian Gang underground in Boston / NYC but did not have a problem with Irish or Italians (or Germans, or Poles, or French - well, the French are different ; ) ) . I support LEGAL immigration. I support immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, but I do expect them to buy in to the American idea and assimilate. I also expect a higher level of vetting, same as I would expect with IRA folks coming over in the 80s or Russian mob types in the 90s.

There - immigration - WITHIN THE LAW - with vetting of potential problem / ideology / and those that choose not to assimilate.

For many conservatives its worth it as long as those bad eggs are not Muslim or Mexcian. whole streets in Fall river still speak Portuguese they have moved ti where the french used to live and now other immigrants live where the Portuguese started ..

many Americans have never seen or experienced how integration works like urban Americans .. rural Americans Have the right who explains it ..

Thank you for the instruction on how to think

didn't know they had an Anti-immigration agenda.

They have a Pro-Increased Security and Improved Vetting agenda.

Maybe they have an Anti-ILLEGAL-Immigration agenda. Maybe that's where you are getting confused.

but never knew they had an Anti-Immigration agenda.

Ding Ding Ding

My "Party" is the one that respects the law, supports legal immigration, embraces Freedom, and respects the Constitution.

Sometimes that is Reps and on a rare occasion it is Dems.

wdmso

11-02-2017, 03:40 PM

didn't know they had an Anti-immigration agenda.

They have a Pro-Increased Security and Improved Vetting agenda. (we have no issues with our vetting or our security only your party thinks one exist against all the facts to the contary )

Maybe they have an Anti-ILLEGAL-Immigration agenda. Maybe that's where you are getting confused.

but never knew they had an Anti-Immigration agenda.

Seems you dont know your Party very well

wdmso

11-02-2017, 03:43 PM

I am OK with it within reason. I don't like the Irish or Italian Gang underground in Boston / NYC but did not have a problem with Irish or Italians (or Germans, or Poles, or French - well, the French are different ; ) ) . I support LEGAL immigration. I support immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, but I do expect them to buy in to the American idea and assimilate. I also expect a higher level of vetting, same as I would expect with IRA folks coming over in the 80s or Russian mob types in the 90s.

There - immigration - WITHIN THE LAW - with vetting of potential problem / ideology / and those that choose not to assimilate.

Thank you for the instruction on how to think

Ding Ding Ding

My "Party" is the one that respects the law, supports legal immigration, embraces Freedom, and respects the Constitution.

Sometimes that is Reps and on a rare occasion it is Dems.

No john Both partys only act like their the only ones who respects the law, supports legal immigration, embraces Freedom, and respects the Constitution. you forgot they sleep wrapped in an American flag and are the only True American Patriots
. its all a sales pitch .. and Blind allegiances are the true enemy of America and its demise

detbuch

11-02-2017, 05:36 PM

JohnR

11-02-2017, 06:17 PM

No john Both partys only act like their the only ones who respects the law, supports legal immigration, embraces Freedom, and respects the Constitution. you forgot they sleep wrapped in an American flag and are the only True American Patriots
. its all a sales pitch .. and Blind allegiances are the true enemy of America and its demise

You are loosely, partially, correct Wayne. Politicians in general - both parties - pay lip service to the laws they like while trying to gain personally from it (cough Term Limits)

The Dems are ACTIVELY promoting and encouraging illegal immigration. They are in all instances willingly promoting immigration of people that are NOT HERE LEGALLY. In some cases they are looking to offer illegal immigrants the right to vote.

At least most Reps only want to block Illegal Immigration - yes I am fairly confident some would block all - but that isn't me. But many will allow some path for some to stay.

Equal protection under the law - it doesn't always work that way but it is what we should strive for.

As for your "Blind Allegiance" you do understand I am not longer a Dem, right? Sometimes vote Dem, sometimes Rep, but party wise I am unaffiliated.

detbuch

11-02-2017, 06:52 PM

Interesting conversation from another ex-Muslim with Molyneux. Stefan is not as annoying as he usually is and it's a worthwhile talk. It is not at all inflammatory as the cover picture suggests, and covers a lot more than No Go Zones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQC_Fi7X5g4

zimmy

11-02-2017, 09:15 PM

I support immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, but I do expect them to buy in to the American idea and assimilate.

I don't really know what people really want when they want someone to assimilate. Signs in Pennsylvania were in both English and German until WW1 when the Kaiser became the enemy. The Amish for 200 plus years have isolated themselves from American culture. Amish won't join the military. Never heard anyone complain about Amish, Mennonites, or brethrens wearing head coverings. Mormans similarly are culturally isolated. There are still pockets of Russian speaking communities with women in long headscarves and dresses in Alaska.I believe many people talk about assimilation because they fear Islam and associate it with terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-02-2017, 09:30 PM

Just because they are illegal, doesn't mean people won't have them.

now that people are aware of the technology....they'll be making them in their garage. Looks like a very simple item to make.

No, it's not a guarantee that no one will ever have them. But it makes it harder, which means it's possible that lives can be saved. It means that some people won't have them, that might have them if they were legal.

When seat belt laws were passed, the critics said "just because it's illegal to not wear a seat belt, doesn't mean that some people won't still choose not to wear them". And they are 100% right...despite the law, some people don't wear seat belts. But some obey the law, and people are alive because of it. Seat belt laws don't reduce auto fatalities to zero, but that doesn't mean they don't have a positive impact.

It's not the same thing, but it's close, don't you think?

detbuch

11-02-2017, 10:28 PM

Islam is not a nationality or ethnicity. And it is not merely a religion. As well as being a religion, it is a political ideology. It is an ideology as expansionist as Communism. It is more authoritarian than Communism and can be as cruel as Nazism, with the exception that you are allowed to convert or suffer economic slavery or death. So-called "moderate" Muslims know how unaccepting of others it becomes when it is the law of the land, when it comprises the majority population. So, in countries where they are minorities, especially in the U.S., some are attempting to convince their leaders to reform. At this point that is more of a wish than an accomplishment. They do succeed in quietly establishing a sort of tacit moderate practice of the tenets of their ideology, and are friendly, wonderful, normal people. The problem is when they become a majority, their religious leaders impose the true, unreformed nature of Islam. And the larger Muslim conclaves being established in Europe do, as the video above points out, become no-go zones, even for police, so assimilation is totally and intentionally avoided, and a more fundamentalist Islam is practiced.

So Muslim immigration is not equivalent to various ethnic, non-Islamic, immigration. When you have an influx of a large number of Muslims all at once, it not only makes assimilation difficult over the shorter term, it is more akin to inviting an ideology that is inimical to Western values and to U.S. legal norms. The comparison would be more like inviting potential Communists or Nazis, rather than Buddhists, or Daoists, or Jews, or Christians, or atheists.

I wish the video above didn't have that ridiculous cover picture. It really is an interesting rational discussion. It is not dogmatic or extreme. It should be watched as an aid to understanding a little bit more than most folks are informed about.

The Dad Fisherman

11-02-2017, 10:42 PM

Seems you dont know your Party very well

You mean "Unenrolled"?

Seems you like to make assumptions about what flavor kool aid people drink.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

11-03-2017, 04:03 AM

You mean "Unenrolled"?

Seems you like to make assumptions about what flavor kool aid people drink.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

kool aid is cool aid flavor only convinces people its not kool aid

scottw

11-03-2017, 04:45 AM

It's not the same thing, but it's close, don't you think?

ummmm...no....banning something is not close to the same thing as fining someone for not wearing something...it's practically the opposite....do I have to explain further?

Sea Dangles

11-03-2017, 07:03 AM

I don't really know what people really want when they want someone to assimilate. Signs in Pennsylvania were in both English and German until WW1 when the Kaiser became the enemy. The Amish for 200 plus years have isolated themselves from American culture. Amish won't join the military. Never heard anyone complain about Amish, Mennonites, or brethrens wearing head coverings. Mormans similarly are culturally isolated. There are still pockets of Russian speaking communities with women in long headscarves and dresses in Alaska.I believe many people talk about assimilation because they fear Islam and associate it with terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you think they fear this group and accept the others. Ask the Japanese how accepting we were after they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

11-03-2017, 07:34 AM

Why do you think they fear this group and accept the others. Ask the Japanese how accepting we were after they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's easy. It's because the general public is not thoughtful or discerning enough to differentiate between extremist minority and the other 1.6 billion people who practice the associated religion.

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 08:00 AM

ummmm...no....banning something is not close to the same thing as fining someone for not wearing something...it's practically the opposite....do I have to explain further?

Man oh man...

I agree, banning possession isn't the same as forcing you to do something...

But I'll say two things..

(1) those two things are similar in this regard...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". That is a very, very common argument, and it's completely absurd. No law is perfect. Laws against murder, don't prevent 100% of murders, but it would be asinine to use that as an excuse to do away with anti-murder laws. But if the law does some good, and is constitutional, it may be worth enacting. Saving some lives isn't as good as saving all lives, but it's better than nothing.

(2) we currently ban the possession of all kinds of things...that in and of itself, isn't a totalitarian concept. I don't want George Soros to have a nuke just because he can afford one.

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 08:03 AM

I don't really know what people really want when they want someone to assimilate. Signs in Pennsylvania were in both English and German until WW1 when the Kaiser became the enemy. The Amish for 200 plus years have isolated themselves from American culture. Amish won't join the military. Never heard anyone complain about Amish, Mennonites, or brethrens wearing head coverings. Mormans similarly are culturally isolated. There are still pockets of Russian speaking communities with women in long headscarves and dresses in Alaska.I believe many people talk about assimilation because they fear Islam and associate it with terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Amish don't mutilate their women's genitalia, they don't beat their girls who want to learn how to read.

Not complete, total assimilation, but some assimilation. You make a very interesting point regarding the Amish, but they aren't dedicated to killing as many non-Amish as they possibly can.

Sea Dangles

11-03-2017, 08:22 AM

That's easy. It's because the general public is not thoughtful or discerning enough to differentiate between extremist minority and the other 1.6 billion people who practice the associated religion.

Kudos to you if you are one of the thoughtful ones. I hope terrorists such as the one in NYC are discerning enough to recognize you as such and will spare your life. Obviously the 8 folks murdered were unable to let the alleged murderer see their good side.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

11-03-2017, 08:55 AM

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 09:20 AM

Right, but why don't we ban "Christian" white guys because of Dylann Roof or Jeremy Christian or James Jackson or Robert Lewis Dear or Eric Frein or Frazier Miller etc.

Because there is no large, organized coalition of millions of Christians (in other countries who want to immigrate here), who support the notion of killing everyone who isn't like them. There aren't millions of Christians worldwide, who have declared a jihad on everyone else.

It's a good question...in my opinion, there's a reasonable answer.

Sea Dangles

11-03-2017, 09:23 AM

I am not too sure there is a ban, have you heard about the vetting process?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 09:25 AM

Zimmy asked a great question about assimilation. Another reason why this is often associated with Muslims, and not a big deal with the Amish 9who aren't overly assimilated into modern western culture), is that the Amish aren't a threat to become a significant enough portion of our population to tilt our national identity in their direction.

If you look at European nations which have allowed a lot of Muslim immigration...Muslims are becoming a significant percentage of the overall population. Muslims have large families, and white Europeans do not. It only takes a few generational cycles, before you see a noticeable shift in national demographics. The Europeans didn't consider this. Many of them are regretting that they didn't factor that into their immigration policy.

I'm not worried that much of our country is going to look like Lancaster, PA where the Amish live. It scares the hell out of me, that we would take even a tiny step, in looking more like the Middle East. That's what is happening in Europe (to some degree), and they are scared sh*tless.

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 09:29 AM

Kudos to you if you are one of the thoughtful ones. I hope terrorists such as the one in NYC are discerning enough to recognize you as such and will spare your life. Obviously the 8 folks murdered were unable to let the alleged murderer see their good side.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gee, when you put it that way...

I think most people realize that the majority of Muslims are good people. But there are 2 billion muslims, and if 1% of them are jihadists, that's 20 million jihadists. I feel horrible for innocent, decent Muslims. Not so horrible, that I'm wiling to sacrifice innocent Americans on the altar of political correctness.

Zimmy, if I gave you a bowl of 100 skittles, and told you that 1 of them was poisoned, how many would you eat? How many would you let your loved ones eat? Answer - zero. People aren't candy, so it's not a perfect analogy, but it's not a meaningless analogy either.

detbuch

11-03-2017, 09:33 AM

Right, but why don't we ban "Christian" white guys because of Dylann Roof or Jeremy Christian or James Jackson or Robert Lewis Dear or Eric Frein or Frazier Miller etc.

Christian dogma based on its new testament Bible is not a threat to those who do not wish to be Christian. Christianity is not a political system. Christ specifically said to render unto Caesar (the government) what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Islamic dogma based on the Koran, which does not yet have a new testament, is absolutely inimical to Western culture in general, and specifically so to our constitutional system of government. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political system. There is no separation of power in Islam between mosque and state. There is no separate renderings to government and God. God and government are one and the same.

Those who are nominally Christian, but commit statutory murder, are apostates, not really Christian. Those who are nominally Muslim, and in the name of Allah kill those who are not Muslim and are part of anything that is contrary to Islam, are not, at this time, apostates. There has not yet been an official reformation of Islam which says to render unto Allah that which is Allah's and to the government that which is the government's. That would be a tautology. Allah is still, in Islam, the government.

If you believe that it is a good thing, a strengthening of diversity in our country, to invite immigrants here who have a political allegiance to an ideology that is contrary to our system of government and our Western values, then I would assume that you would be OK in importing Communists or Nazis or political fascists or any other anti-liberty authoritarians--for diversity.

The Dad Fisherman

11-03-2017, 09:38 AM

Right, but why don't we ban "Christian" white guys because of Dylann Roof or Jeremy Christian or James Jackson or Robert Lewis Dear or Eric Frein or Frazier Miller etc.

You mean the Christian White Guys who are US citizens, or the Christian White Guys coming from Syria?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman

11-03-2017, 09:39 AM

kool aid is cool aid flavor only convinces people its not kool aid

Did you get that off a fortune cookie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

11-03-2017, 09:41 AM

detbuch

11-03-2017, 09:46 AM

That was well written Jim. I have faith in our constitution and our system (unwavering faith until the past 9 months). We would never have systems of government like those in middle east. As far as the cultural aspects, there are lots of them in all kinds of cultures that I disagree with, but I am pretty sure we should not make immigration decisions based on religion or culture.

In case you missed it a few posts before this, let me repeat:

Christian dogma based on its new testament Bible is not a threat to those who do not wish to be Christian. Christianity is not a political system. Christ specifically said to render unto Caesar (the government) what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Islamic dogma based on the Koran, which does not yet have a new testament, is absolutely inimical to Western culture in general, and specifically so to our constitutional system of government. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political system. There is no separation of power in Islam between mosque and state. There is no separate renderings to government and God. God and government are one and the same.

Those who are nominally Christian, but commit statutory murder, are apostates, not really Christian. Those who are nominally Muslim, and in the name of Allah kill those who are not Muslim and are part of anything that is contrary to Islam, are not, at this time, apostates. There has not yet been an official reformation of Islam which says to render unto Allah that which is Allah's and to the government that which is the government's. That would be a tautology. Allah is still, in Islam, the government.

If you believe that it is a good thing, a strengthening of diversity in our country, to invite immigrants here who have a political allegiance to an ideology that is contrary to our system of government and our Western values, then I would assume that you would be OK in importing Communists or Nazis or political fascists or any other anti-liberty authoritarians--for diversity.

You say "we should not make immigration decisions based on religion or culture." How about on the basis of political ideology?

zimmy

11-03-2017, 09:50 AM

Zimmy, if I gave you a bowl of 100 skittles, and told you that 1 of them was poisoned, how many would you eat? How many would you let your loved ones eat? Answer - zero. People aren't candy, so it's not a perfect analogy, but it's not a meaningless analogy either.

Bogus analogy. There have been several million Muslim immigrants in the last 25 years and the crime and terrorism rate is lower for the Muslim population than white males. It isn't 1 in 100 skittles. it is one in 500,000. When you weight the cost/benefits of immigration and refuge relocation, I will take those odds fine.

scottw

11-03-2017, 10:03 AM

But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward". That is a very, very common argument, and it's completely absurd.

I've actually never heard anyone say this....

(2) we currently ban the possession of all kinds of things...that in and of itself, isn't a totalitarian concept. I don't want George Soros to have a nuke just because he can afford one.

have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??:huh:

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 10:15 AM

have we banned George Soros from owning nukes??:huh:

You've never heard people argue against gun control, by saying "this legislation would not have prevented this attack"?

Banning bump stocks doesn't guarantee that this kook would not have shot up the concert in Vegas. It very possibly, could have saved some lives.

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 10:19 AM

Bogus analogy. There have been several million Muslim immigrants in the last 25 years and the crime and terrorism rate is lower for the Muslim population than white males. It isn't 1 in 100 skittles. it is one in 500,000. When you weight the cost/benefits of immigration and refuge relocation, I will take those odds fine.

"the crime and terrorism rate is lower for the Muslim population than white males" Sure, death at the hands of Islamic jihadists, is not the #1 cause of death in the USA. That doesn't mean it's not a very serious issue.

"It isn't 1 in 100 skittles. it is one in 500,000"

I don't know what the % is, I have heard it's as high as 3% - 5% who support the jihad. It's not 1 in 500,000, that would mean 4,000 jihadists. No one knows what the number is.

"I will take those odds fine"

You have every right to say that. And I have every right to say, "I don't want to roll those dice". I don't think that makes you an idiot, and I sure don't think my stance makes me an idiot. Nor do I think it makes me an Islamophobe, which is how most people on the left describe my position.

scottw

11-03-2017, 10:39 AM

You've never heard people argue against gun control, by saying "this legislation would not have prevented this attack"?

that's not what you wrote...

Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward".

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 10:44 AM

that's not what you wrote...

Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
But I'll say two things..

(1) ...people who opposed seat belt laws, and people who always oppose gun regulation, often use this kind of an argument..."the law won't guarantee that there will be zero deaths going forward".

Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.

scottw

11-03-2017, 10:47 AM

detbuch

11-03-2017, 12:28 PM

Good Lord...the argument I am refuting, is the argument (flawed in my opinion) that if a law isn't perfect, that it therefore shouldn't be enacted. Many, many people use this approach to protest gun laws. They also used it to protest seat belt laws, which admittedly aren't perfect, but clearly have saved lives.

This really belongs in another thread. But . . . oh well . . . in the first place, you refuse to see the flaw in using criminal law as an analogy for justifying a limit to Constitutional law . . . and you keep repeating the contradiction that limiting the Second Amendment will save a few lives.

Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government. You somehow are OK with that if it saves even one life. The only way, in my opinion, that could be your point of view is that you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it.

And that goes for all the other limitations you perceive to exist on the other rights the Constitution protects. So the whole thing should be abolished. Write a new one. Or, more conveniently, do as the Progressives do, just make new laws and appoint judges who will uphold them.

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 01:34 PM

you keep making stuff up

No I'm not. Read the thread on the Vegas shooting. Read TDF's post #31 here, where he says that bans on bump stocks won't stop everyone from having them - once again, if the law isn't perfect, that means it's a bad law?

I don't have media research data at my fingertips. But I listen to what people are saying. Many, many people who oppose gun laws, use this logic. In my opinion, it's flawed logic. I doubt there's a single law on our books that's 100% effective.

Jim in CT

11-03-2017, 01:40 PM

This really belongs in another thread. But . . . oh well . . . in the first place, you refuse to see the flaw in using criminal law as an analogy for justifying a limit to Constitutional law . . . and you keep repeating the contradiction that limiting the Second Amendment will save a few lives.

Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government. You somehow are OK with that if it saves even one life. The only way, in my opinion, that could be your point of view is that you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it.

And that goes for all the other limitations you perceive to exist on the other rights the Constitution protects. So the whole thing should be abolished. Write a new one. Or, more conveniently, do as the Progressives do, just make new laws and appoint judges who will uphold them.

"This really belongs in another thread"

I agree. I didn't insert it here, someone else did.

"Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government."

So if the government wants to ban bump stocks, it's reasonable to assume the next step, is they will, what? Kill me and take my IRA? That's tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

Again, the founding fathers made it clear through their actions, that the Bill Of Rights isn't absolute.

"you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it."

OK, so unless one thinks bump stocks should be allowed, one has zero regard for the US Constutution. Not everything ends up at one radical extreme or the other. Again, I can go on TV and call the President horrible names, the First Amendment gives me that right. But I can't threaten him or anyone else. The freedoms are not an "all or nothing" scenario, and I cannot fathom you would state that they are.

wdmso

11-03-2017, 02:16 PM

Did you get that off a fortune cookie
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it should be

I admit I drink my share of kool aid but happily I can say its not from 1 source or 1 flavor:btu:

detbuch

11-03-2017, 03:03 PM

"Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government."

So if the government wants to ban bump stocks,

What do you mean by "the" government.

. . . it's reasonable to assume the next step, is they will, what? Kill me and take my IRA? That's tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

From what those in the "federal" government have been doing and further trying to do for around a century, it's reasonable to assume there will be a next step. You're absurd examples of what that might be are weak, not at all persuasive in assuming there won't be a next step. Using illogic to feign logic not only lacks persuasion, it implies that the reasoning is illogical--it sounds like tin foil counter argument.

Again, the founding fathers made it clear through their actions, that the Bill Of Rights isn't absolute.

They did not. The Bill of Rights, as well as all the other inherent rights, are absolute within the Constitution's scale and meaning. Outside of that, the Constitution has no absolution, but has various influences and implications.

You're a mathematician. Does 2+2 always equal 4? No, not in nominal, ordinal, or interval scales. But in ratio scales 2+2 always equals 4.

The Founder's actions, if "interpreted" within the political scale in which they wrote the Constitution, do make those rights absolute. That has been explained several times in previous posts in other threads. You either don't understand the explanations, or just don't accept them. You counter them, not with legal arguments, but with emotional ones and irrelevant or absurd analogies.

"you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it."

OK, so unless one thinks bump stocks should be allowed, one has zero regard for the US Constutution. Not everything ends up at one radical extreme or the other. Again, I can go on TV and call the President horrible names, the First Amendment gives me that right. But I can't threaten him or anyone else. The freedoms are not an "all or nothing" scenario, and I cannot fathom you would state that they are.

The Constitution is not radically "extreme." It was rationally hammered out as the best way to insure equal rights and freedoms before the law. Implying that individuals are prone to error or lawlessness must therefor mean that laws have limits leaves us, and would have left the Founders, with either creating anarchic government or a system of government for which there is no end to exceptions.

Exceptions for human transgression against law in cases of extreme urgency can always, without creating laws for every possible exception, be implied. It would be absolutely reasonable to understand the existence of such a right. No law need be written to express that idea. That would be inherent in human nature. Probably part of those vast residuum of rights left to the people which are outside of the government's enumerated constitutional powers. But the threads of human nature are too vast to be defined.

Government, on the other hand, and its laws, must necessarily be defined. Loose definitions cannot suffice for law. For there to be compliance, there must be definite parameters to law, extreme exceptions to compliance notwithstanding.

So defined government has little to no room to legislate outside of the scale to which it is constitutionally bound. If there is no constitution, no scale, there is no boundary and government can do as it wishes.

It could be understood that there may arise a very extreme circumstance that a constitutionally limited government would have to act outside of the scope granted to it, usually involving some sort of an existential threat to the nation. That is why a strong executive was created by the Constitution, but such a circumstance would have to be of the utmost danger. The mass shootings, common murders, etc., are not at that level of threat to the nation. It is far more of a threat to the people of this nation if their right of defense against tyranny was limited because of criminal disturbances in various states.

As for freedoms not being an all or nothing scenario as you put it, they must be discussed in terms of the Founders understanding of freedom. That has also been described several times in various threads. In what way is the Founders view of freedom not absolute?

detbuch

11-03-2017, 03:11 PM

it should be

I admit I drink my share of kool aid but happily I can say its not from 1 source or 1 flavor:btu:

Your sources appear to be far more limited than those with whom you disagree.

ReelinRod

11-04-2017, 10:49 AM

Smart enough to see Murder is murder reguardless on the motivation

No. Liberals only get outraged when the killer is a White male. Liberals are happy to ignore the majority of murder and focus on the lighting strikes of mass casualty events. That attention cools and dies as quick as welding slag if the killer is a minority (San Bernardino).

Liberals scream 'RACISM' when ever any note is made that 6.7% of the nation's population comprise 53% of gun homicides.

And smart enough to understand that Conservatives care more about who did the killing when it fits their anti Immigration agenda

And the left's disingenuousness starts right there, in how you define conservative's position as a generalized "anti-immigration agenda". I don't know any conservative that is against legal immigration, outrage about illegal immigrant murderers is multi-layered. Just a few:

Illegal border crossers and visa overstays are law breakers simply by being here -- there is no such thing as a "law-abiding illegal immigrant" (see my sig-line).

We are disgusted that liberals are so eager to ignore the crimes of illegal immigrants -- to the point of declaring certain areas of the USA to be a sanctuary for them. They get released back into society even if there is a detention order on them. Our disgust turns to rage when one of those released criminals kills an American; the blood-guilt for those deaths lays at your feet.

your up to speed on 2a issues and arguments I suggest you broaden your reading .. its easy being a 1 trick pony

LOL. The reason I focus on gun rights is precisely because liberals think the 2nd Amendment is a single issue discussion. They think they are just talking about "guns" but so much more is exposed.

The 2nd Amendment and gun rights is a benchmark for one's understanding and respect for the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Liberals are willing (if not eager) to rationalize carving-out this right from the "rational continuum" of liberty for special treatment, ignoring inviolate rules and principles to achieve what they deem to be, much more important social policy objectives (i.e., "public safety").

In other words, how a person considers the 2nd Amendment is a short but reliable test to expose a wide breadth of deficiencies in understanding of the Constitution and its application (the legitimate extent of government).

I recognize that some "conservatives" have their own litmus test . . . (i.e., abortion and LGBTQ rights) that expose their deficiencies in understanding and applying the Constitution.

As far as I'm concerned -- being an Originalist / Strict Constructionist -- in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and Constitution-ignoring leftists have more in common than social/cultural conservatives and Constitutional Originalist conservatives.

Each see government having a role in "regulating" (if not outlawing) what they consider, their fellow citizen's unacceptable behavior. That many dogma governed social/cultural conservatives cloak themselves in the claim that they are Originalists or Strict Constructionists disgusts me as much as the misrepresentations of living constitution leftists.

.

ReelinRod

11-04-2017, 11:36 AM

But you are 100% correct, it's amazingly hypocritical for conservatives to attack liberals for using the Vegas attack to advocate for gun control, and then do the same thing by using this terror attack to advocate for immigration security.

I think the real reason Republicans quickly said, "this isn't the time", is to spare Democrats the embarrassment of going off the deep-end proposing knee-jerk, ridiculously ineffective policy. If the Dem's can be counted for anything it is acting the fool when it looks like more than two decades of gun control blue-balls are about to be released.

There is nothing wrong, in the wake of any tragedy, to advocate for policies that would make another tragedy less likely. Both sides do it, yet each side acts as if only the other side does it. It's stupid.

One big difference between these instances is that Republican proposals would have an effect on the particular type of event. Just like liberals say, 'if there were no guns nobody would get shot; let's like, you know, get rid of them', righties say 'if we had a firm handle on who comes in we wouldn't be suffering these crimes at the hands of non-citizens'.

Big hint, only one side's "solution" to the "problem" are both reasonable and have a chance of being effective.

I don't get how any sane person can be opposed to our being aggressive and vigilant in the war on terror. Nor do I get how any sane person can think that the second amendment is absolute. Each of those two extreme positions, defies common sense.

I can admit that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute if you can agree that that truth does not mean that any gun law the left can think up is constitutional.

It's hilarious, the people who most employ the "absolute right" line are anti-gunners. I rarely hear any such thing from pro-gunners; when the government can take someone's life, how can any right be said to be "absolute"?

The term when employed by anti-gunners is intended to quash dialogue rather than nurture it. It is uttered in the hope that the reader has as superficial an understanding of the issue as the speaker, so the speaker's opinion that any law the left can think up is A-OK is agreed to.

.