The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

Why do you think Democrat-backed "media" don't have the same faults? Moral superiority?

That's dangerous. That's as crazy as giving Melissa Glick a Glock.
 
Why do you think Democrat-backed "media" don't have the same faults? Moral superiority?
Both the democrat backed media and the republican backed media have similar faults. The democrat backed media tends to stick closer to actual fact, since recently republican backed media has found that facts present inconvenient obstacles to their agenda.
 
Specific groups targeted for immigration restrictions:
Reagan - 5
H.W. Bush - 1
Clinton - 12
W. Bush - 6
Obama - 19 (4 against Muslim countries, including loss of visa waiver for just visiting any of the same countries in Trump's ban)

But I agree that the implementation/rollout was horrid, and it's not well calibrated to its purported justification.

Soviet Jews have basically had refugee status for 50 years, solely on the basis of their religion (religious test), so why has no one condemned that? Maybe because Jews vote democrat?
 
Last edited:
And yet, to my knowledge, Trump is the only one that specifically mentioned an exception for Christians from said nations...

Regardless of intent or purpose, a religious test is unconstitutional...
 
The democrat backed media tends to stick closer to actual fact,
billvon
not sure i agree with this one ... just sayin'

IMHO, any politically backed media outlet is simply a tool that is used by said political party to attempt to establish a truth by repetition, much like any cult or religious organization. this is why people fall for things like "pizza gate" and still believe there is no AGW, IMHO.
Regardless of intent or purpose, a religious test is unconstitutional...
can i hear an amen?
LMFAO

sorry Kittamaru
i just had to do it!
i couldn't help myself...
 
Heh, no problem Captain... I just wish Republicans would remember these things in the Constitution more often then simply when it is convenient for them.
yeah...
personally, i wish all political parties would remember it

they each have their own agenda and you can see that with any party, be it DEM or REPUB's (or etc)
and sometimes the only casualty is the constitution

meh
 
yeah...
personally, i wish all political parties would remember it

they each have their own agenda and you can see that with any party, be it DEM or REPUB's (or etc)
and sometimes the only casualty is the constitution

meh

Aye, though I think, at least until this last election, Dems were a bit more cognizant of it. I think Obama did what he honestly thought was in the best interests of the nation... whereas with Trump, it is pretty obvious he is acting in the best interests of himself.
 
whereas with Trump
actually, you didn't even have to continue past that , IMHO ...

[jk]

i am actually more than a tad worried about his anti-science stance... it's not like we don't have enough stupidity already around here
IMHO this is justification for action
I think Obama did what he honestly thought was in the best interests of the nation...
not sure i agree with this, but i know people who have argued the same thing
but then again, i am also skeptical of anyone who says they are working in the best interest of anything other than themselves

but that's just me
 
IMHO, any politically backed media outlet is simply a tool that is used by said political party to attempt to establish a truth by repetition
While that is true for true "political media outlets" like Breitbart, most news outlets are made up of real journalists that are simply more congruent to one point of view or the other. Thus, you will even see FOX News occasionally report on climate change, even if they often downplay it or deny parts of it.

Currently the republican party is relying on denial of fact; most of Trump's positions recently are contrary to reality. Thus, being more amenable to his policies will result in being farther from actual fact, even if they are otherwise trying to be accurate.
 
I think it's based on political persecution in their own country.

No necessity to show evidence of any persecution (like under the UN definition of refugee), but even if there were, wouldn't that be plenty of reason to show preference to Christians from Muslim countries?
 
I suppose that would be true, but it would also be true for many refugees who are the "wrong" kind of Muslim. Or some persecuted ethnicity. Or persecuted for some Islamic transgression, like women on social media.
 
No necessity to show evidence of any persecution (like under the UN definition of refugee), but even if there were, wouldn't that be plenty of reason to show preference to Christians from Muslim countries?
Define Muslim.... define Christian...?
Do you realize that any one can become a Muslim?
Any one could arrive as a Christian and then convert to Islam immediately they step out of the airport.

The point is, religious discrimination, is useless and dangerous because it sets up a false sense of reality.

Discriminating against any nation using terrorism as an excuse is the same problem.
Any one can become a terrorist at any time...regardless of nationality or religious belief.

The whole problem of this sort of discrimination is that it simply doesn't work for you. It works against you...
 
If all Trumpies wanted to do was end migration then do it with out discrimination...
No more migration of any nationality or religion ...simple!
The only laws broken then are international laws on the requirement to accept refugees generally and non-specific.

Trump chose to raise the discrimination flag instead of the migration flag - two very different fish!

If he placed a temporary and general moratorium on migration (residential) regardless of nationality and religion his moratorium would probably be still in place today with out legal challenges in the courts. He is a fool and that is all there is to it...
 
Last edited:
I like how all the atheists have suddenly rushed to the defense of a religion, of all things, and diametrically opposed to their own ideals to boot. Unless atheists now favor subjugating women and persecuting gays.
 
I like how all the atheists have suddenly rushed to the defense of a religion, of all things, and diametrically opposed to their own ideals to boot. Unless atheists now favor subjugating women and persecuting gays.
And I am amused how the right wing has abandoned Christianity now that the Pope has come out against Trump's wall, and come out for the basics of Christianity (helping the poor, turning the other cheek, not turning the needy away.)
 
I like how all the atheists have suddenly rushed to the defense of a religion, of all things, and diametrically opposed to their own ideals to boot. Unless atheists now favor subjugating women and persecuting gays.
That's a bullshit argument because many atheists support religious freedom, which includes the right to not believe. Gays and women in the US are increasingly protected under the law. I think the influence of a secular society could make religions more moderate.
 
I like how all the atheists have suddenly rushed to the defense of a religion, of all things, and diametrically opposed to their own ideals to boot. Unless atheists now favor subjugating women and persecuting gays.

Just a Trump flame boy....
What are you scared about Syne?
If you are scared of Muslims Daesh ( the terrorists) have won.... Have they won Syne?
The issue is discrimination....based on religion or race...
 
Back
Top