« First « Previous Comments 20 - 43 of 43 Search these comments
banning Muslims won't stop Muslims from committing acts of terror.
Stopping them from coming here would stop them from committing acts of terror here.
Also, the State Department should publish an official list of foreign places currently at war against us, e.g. expressly the Islamic State and reportedly Saudi Arabia. Congress should enact legislation stating that any person who chooses to travel to a listed place is thereby renouncing whatever right (s)he may ever have had to return here (visa, citizenship, whatever). Finally, offering everyone a free ticket to Hajj, and reminding everyone that Islam says believers must go to Hajj if they can afford to, would eventually get rid of Islamic terrorism from this country.
As an additional benefit, such policies would stop Muslims from imposing Islam on non-Muslims via other legal demands (e.g. dietary and workplace rules, and amplified calls to prayer 5x/day). It would be a quite logical response to say that believers are free to practice their religion, which says to go on Hajj, "Here have a free ticket, enjoy the trip, have a nice day."
If other countries choose to import Islam, then let that be their problem, not ours.
Stopping them from coming here would stop them from committing acts of terror here.
Kind of my point. Applies to Muslims, guns, and a lot of other things.
guns, and a lot of other things.
Respectfully, "where there's a will, there's a way." If you import people who have a compelling motive to kill you, and/or fail to export the ones who are already here, then security would require banning guns, knives, trucks, cars, fertilizer, ropes&rooftops, stones, and countless other means that have been used to kill people in the name of Islam. In addition, the presence of such people becomes an excuse to take away privacy rights, e.g. the emergency powers in France, which bans guns but allows Muslims. At the Bataclan, only the Muslims had guns. If you outlaw guns, then only the most motivated outlaws will have guns, and you can end up worse off as a result. A political platform of importing jihadis and disarming Christians would have been perfect for the Democrats' Saudi sponsors, but not for Americans.
99% Muslim, 43,000 Somali refugees settled in US under Obama.
Meanwhile, the administration set records for deporting Christians from south of the border. The crime rate for illegal aliens tends generally to approximate the crime rate for the domestic population, but the crime rate for Muslims tends to be significantly higher, and especially the terrorist kill rate is at least an order of magnitude higher.
Nothing happens against the will of Yahweh/Jehovah.
The question is:Why is GOD so pissed that a Muslim was allowed to commit this act.
Based on your thought process, we should ban cars, as approximately 100 people a day die from them, a hell of a lot more than guns. Where's your outrage about banning cars??
Everyone should be able to own anything that can maim or kill.
You maim or kill someone, YOU DIE NOW!
Rep/Con/Tea/Neo-Nazis motto: It's not my fault. I refuse to take responsibility.
Nothing happens against the will of Yahweh/Jehovah.
The question is:Why is GOD so pissed that a Muslim was allowed to commit this act.
Sadly, it's the devil Allah who is responsible for these acts.
If we're lookto ban things that are harmful, why not start with alcohol? At the very least, stop forcing the rest of us to subsidize all the harms alcohol wreaks on society.
armful, why not start with alcohol? At the very least, stop forcing the rest of us to subsidize all the harms alcohol wreaks on society.
It's been tried, didn't work.
If we're lookto ban things that are harmful, why not start with alcohol?
Moderate amounts of alcohol are good for you. What good is Islam?
Nothing happens against the will of Yahweh/Jehovah.
The question is:Why is GOD so pissed that a Muslim was allowed to commit this act?So if you were an all powerful and all merciful God, you would prevent people from doing anything harmful to each other? Or immoral, too, I suppose. Or sacrilegious, or unlawful or rude or racist etc etc etc.
And we would all live in nice plastic bubbles of sterility lest we bump into one another and get boo-boos!What a vision of Hell!
Good thing God isn't as short-sighted as you!
armful, why not start with alcohol? At the very least, stop forcing the rest of us to subsidize all the harms alcohol wreaks on society.
It's been tried, didn't work.
When did we try to allow alcohol consumers to pay their way? We've been subsidizing their costs forever.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. We have ~ a century of cannabis prohibition to use as a model for alcohol prohibition 2.0. Put everyone involved in prison, and seize all their money and property, and maybe they'd think twice before burdening society with their toxic substance and the resulting havoc they wreak on society.
When did we try to allow alcohol consumers to pay their way? We've been subsidizing their costs forever.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. We have ~ a century of cannabis prohibition to use as a model for alcohol prohibition 2.0. Put everyone involved in prison, and seize all their money and property, and maybe they'd think twice before burdening society with their toxic substance and the resulting havoc they wreak on society.
What about over eating. Society subsidizes the ill effects of health from over eating fattening food.
Good thing God isn't as short-sighted as you!
Not as bad as the braindead,brainwashed that believe in something that doesn't exist.
Post proof that any deity that man has ever worshiped existed.
Suckers are easily trolled.
What about over eating. Society subsidizes the ill effects of health from over eating fattening food
soda tax has been proposed in the recent past
Finally, offering everyone a free ticket to Hajj, and reminding everyone that Islam says believers must go to Hajj if they can afford to, would eventually get rid of Islamic terrorism from this country.
giving money to go away. Didn't they trying that in Denmark? wonder why they stopped
This morning:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/29/503693426/police-search-for-motive-in-ohio-state-attack
"At the moment little is known about Artan. Authorities believe he acted alone but they do not know the motives behind the attack. "
A little later:
BREAKING: #ISIS’ ‘Amaq News Agency reports that #OhioState attacker Abdul Razak Artan was an ISIS “soldier†pic.twitter.com/1XQAQJXcSR
— Rita Katz (@Rita_Katz) November 29, 2016
Sounds like no one died, except the terrorist, precisely because the terrorist did not have a gun. Had he had a gun like this asshole, dozens of innocent people would be dead.
Sounds like a great case for getting rid of guns.
No asshole, it's a great case for allowing more citizens to carry concealed, since cops can't be everywhere at every minute, since you can't prevent terrorists or loonies from roaming free.
There is no problem between citizens that isn't best solved by a good firefight in a mall.
Liberal Logic 101:
The only way I would go with a weapons ban is if it included a ban on armed bodyguards except for high government officials.
That is, Ana de Rothschild, Hollywood Actors, would only be allowed to have protectors armed with knowledge of Judo or have pepper spray. They couldn't have any firearms, either.
Finally, offering everyone a free ticket to Hajj, and reminding everyone that Islam says believers must go to Hajj if they can afford to, would eventually get rid of Islamic terrorism from this country.
giving money to go away. Didn't they trying that in Denmark? wonder why they stopped
That was a somewhat different program, offering to pay the equivalent of US$15k to repatriate any foreigner who didn't assimilate. It did not target Islam specifically, and AFAIK it did not include a lifetime ban on re-entry, because Denmark (a) doesn't have border control and (b) doesn't have NATO cooperation to speed Muslims to Hajj, and (c) doesn't have the global military reach to enforce a re-entry ban on its own.
Since President-Elect Trump campaigned on re-examining NATO, I would suggest two things:
1) expel Turkey from NATO, based on several already available legitimate reasons;
2) extend the free Hajj ticket and lifetime re-entry ban to all of NATO.
There is no need to offer $15k. Islam commands Muslims to go; if they refuse the free trip, they might as well renounce the whole fraud, which is the point. KSA bans "heretic" Muslims, so the opportunity to deliver heretics directly via NATO airlift would entice many who can't even go otherwise. Whatever happens after that is, according to Islam, the will of Allah. Which is to say, no longer our problem.
That is, Ana de Rothschild, Hollywood Actors, would only be allowed to have protectors armed with knowledge of Judo or have pepper spray
I always have an escort of Jedi.
In fairness to Senator Kaine, there was an act of gun violence: a police officer shot and killed the jihadi. Since (a) the jihadi was merely following Islam ("strike terror into the enemies of Allah...."), and (b) the Democrats campaigned on celebrating and empowering and financing Islam, the killing was clearly "senseless" from Kaine's POV. The police officer should have ordered the other students to stop running away, and then waited patiently for his own turn to get run over and stabbed in the name of Islam.
« First « Previous Comments 20 - 43 of 43 Search these comments
YET ANOTHER Somali Refugee.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3978944/Active-shooter-reported-Ohio-State-University.html
Refugees must be only allowed to settle in SFBA, Orange County, CA, Northern VA or Maryland and only attend private prep schools, and then only allowed to attend Princeton, Georgetown, Brown, and NYU for college.