It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Says He 'Would Certainly Implement' Muslim Database

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We're demonizing databases, right?

We have them for vets, gun owners, felons, legal immigrants (how else are we vetting the Syrian refugees?), political party affiliation, unions, federal employees, etc.




posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
JFYI



Conducting further research on the subject, I found that a national database of prescription drug users already exists. It was created by the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act (NASPER) signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005.
www.naturalnews.com...
A government prescription drug surveillance program is already in place



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No...we are demonizing religious persecution. The absolute most American thing we could do.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Its really distressing to see people in support of "this" vile crap.

It like people have just forgotton history.

Is America really about to go full retard 1933 style?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
With his brilliant logic all males should have to register and classified as high risk or low risk shooters. they have killed more people in mass shootings than terrorists on American soil in recent years since 9/11.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Its really distressing to see people in support of "this" vile crap.

It like people have just forgotton history.

Is America really about to go full retard 1933 style?



No. We will civil war before that happens. What you see as support is really only a marginal segment of society. The folks who actually post online.

Which isn't really even close to being a majority.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I really hope your right and I really hope my therory that he is controlled opposition to make Hillary and Bush seem ok is correct (dam those two
) or if it is doesnt backfire cause I see alot of polls putting this scumbag on top.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DBCowboy

No...we are demonizing religious persecution. The absolute most American thing we could do.


If it is wrong (and I believe it is) to categorize people by their religious beliefs, isn't also just as bad to categorize people by their race, political affiliation, mental status, gun ownership, etc?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: ~Lucidity

We saw a huge swing to the left, we saw the current President's administration start to profile political enemies and label them as threats. There is no denying that there is a ongoing movement to create a database. Trump is not the extreme right, but we may be seeing the blowback from the hard left swing. I'm not saying tit for tat, I am merely suggesting that it is to late for outrage on a partisan level. Something about be careful what you wish for

Not suggesting that the OP is partisan, just that we need to find a uniting factor, and I don't think Muslims is the uniting factor. Not having seen the video, I will assume that trump is talking about a database for immigrants. Understand, I am by no means a trump fan, but I do want to see a swing back towards the center, and I am starting to think the very liberal Trump is my best option


The US is nowhere near a huge swing to the left. Do you even know what the left is? Obama has governed further to the right than Reagan.

Trump on the other hand actually is quite far left, which is what makes it so mind boggling that he has so much Republican and especially conservative support.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DBCowboy

No...we are demonizing religious persecution. The absolute most American thing we could do.


If it is wrong (and I believe it is) to categorize people by their religious beliefs, isn't also just as bad to categorize people by their race, political affiliation, mental status, gun ownership, etc?


THis is what is wrong with politics: right and wrong are based on what people you don't like are doing. Right and wrong are tied to "fair", which has an uncanny knack for turning right into wrong, and wrong into right. "Fair" supercedes right and wrong, and people will happily do wrong just so they feel they are treated fairly.

Its a damned Green Ribbon Society, thats what it is. Everyone wants to feel that they were treated fair, and their feelings then take precedence over right, wrong, and "just". The logic of "two wrong don't make it right" can thus be extended to include, "but it does make it fair, which is more important." oO

No. Broad brush is not "right". So let me ask you in return: do you believe that you can justify a wrong because of another wrong that has been done?
edit on 11/20/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DBCowboy

No...we are demonizing religious persecution. The absolute most American thing we could do.


If it is wrong (and I believe it is) to categorize people by their religious beliefs, isn't also just as bad to categorize people by their race, political affiliation, mental status, gun ownership, etc?


No it isnt.

The term slippery slope comes to mind and trumps rolling down that hill faster.


You want smaller goverment, surely Trumps crackpot ideas are the opposite of that?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

No. Broad brush is not "right". So let me ask you in return: do you believe that you can justify a wrong because of another wrong that has been done?


No. Of course not. I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy when this database is talked about but when another type of database is espoused, people jump on it gleefully.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

So you're ok with gun ownership databases, but not this type of database.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why should we not have a gun-ownership database?

We have a drivers license database - and a taxpayer database - and they do the census every decade......etc



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why should we not have a gun-ownership database?

We have a drivers license database - and a taxpayer database - and they do the census every decade......etc


So some databases are good and some databases are bad. :-/

We have databases already on Syrian refugees, so isn't this topic moot?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's not moot, no, when you are talking about forcing people to declare a religious affiliation and entering them onto a list.

We have Voter-affiliation databases....and those affiliations can be changed at ANY TIME a voter chooses to do so.

A religious affiliation is private - whether the person is atheist, muslim, catholic, baptist, etc. It should NOT ENTER into politics, OR social surveillance.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

because it is a right to bear arms and the atf can not regulate muzzle loaders or air powered rifles.

on top of that it would serve no purpose because one can get around the system too easy with a drill bit or a back door deal.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's not moot, no, when you are talking about forcing people to declare a religious affiliation and entering them onto a list.

We have Voter-affiliation databases....and those affiliations can be changed at ANY TIME a voter chooses to do so.

A religious affiliation is private - whether the person is atheist, muslim, catholic, baptist, etc. It should NOT ENTER into politics, OR social surveillance.



By law, if a person is seeking asylum, they HAVE to declare their religion.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

And do they get a polygraph test? Blood test?

What's to stop them from saying "none"? Or "Christian"? Or Wiccan?
or etc.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Because protection from religious persecution is a founding principle in our nation



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join