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.
originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: neo96
Hypothetical here:
What if....Radicals were bombing the U.S. on a DAILY basis. Let's say, averaging 100 people a day.
At what point does it become an issue?
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
uhh Muslims aren't a race so no it's not bigotry
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: AmericanRealist
dont give a #, Trumps plans are ALL covered in United States law and powers that several presidents have exercised to an extent.
Emotional Edward Bernays bull# marketing wont work on me, and it wont work on a good lot of people either.
Translation: The constitution says its ok to legislate bigotry, so good enough for me.
originally posted by: theonenonlyone
originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: neo96
Hypothetical here:
What if....Radicals were bombing the U.S. on a DAILY basis. Let's say, averaging 100 people a day.
At what point does it become an issue?
The same can be applied to mentally ill having access to guns..at what point does it become an issue?
Although (and I am going to actually say this..lol) Neo has a point. It is not reasonable to lump an entire group together due someone from that group doing something horrendous.
originally posted by: Metallicus
It is a lovely story, but I am not swallowing a load of BS just because it makes you feel good. I don't believe his story is entirely true and if you do then you are naive.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: AmericanRealist
dont give a #, Trumps plans are ALL covered in United States law and powers that several presidents have exercised to an extent.
Emotional Edward Bernays bull# marketing wont work on me, and it wont work on a good lot of people either.
Translation: The constitution says its ok to legislate bigotry, so good enough for me.
originally posted by: theonenonlyone
originally posted by: Metallicus
It is a lovely story, but I am not swallowing a load of BS just because it makes you feel good. I don't believe his story is entirely true and if you do then you are naive.
And who is the true naive person here? The one who buys into the propaganda being spread by anti Muslims and most likely never actually interacted with them or the ones who believe a soldier that has had daily experiences with them.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Indigo5
But Christians are not the ones associated with ISIS, alQaeda, and other Islamic radical extremists. Only muslims.
Common sense, ability to discern a problem, where it's coming from, the main ones involved in it, then formulating a solution....damned political correctness.
Hmmm...But Syed Farook was born and raised in the USA? And how does trump intend to exclude Muslims? Ask them to raise their hands? And of course skin color and nationality isn't being discussed..Just "Muslims"...so lily white Muslims from Canada and such are banned too?
But hell...If "Muslim" is the danger why stop at immigration? Syed Farook was a native....so why not round them up in determent camps? Like we did with the Japanese?
Just as long as we are talking "Common sense, ability to discern a problem...then formulating a solution" and such..
Cuz if your plan is to sacrifice what makes us America in trade for perceived greater safety...I think it's fair for folks to ask you to explain your thinking before doing so.
originally posted by: Chance321
originally posted by: theonenonlyone
originally posted by: Metallicus
It is a lovely story, but I am not swallowing a load of BS just because it makes you feel good. I don't believe his story is entirely true and if you do then you are naive.
And who is the true naive person here? The one who buys into the propaganda being spread by anti Muslims and most likely never actually interacted with them or the ones who believe a soldier that has had daily experiences with them.
Well, it was muslims that tried to take the World Trade Center in 93, The FT Hood terror attack by a muslim in 09, A woman gets beheaded by a muslim in Oklahoma in 2014, San Bernardino terror attack by a muslim. So what was that about being naive?
originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
2) There is currently an Islamic CALIPHATE, on our PLANET, in 2015, in UNDER merely 24 hours flight time away from you.
originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain
Well...that was a rational response.
Clearly there is a job of work to be done in the Middle East, and Chris Herbert never said any different. What he said was that there was no reason to hate Muslims generally, for the stupid and irrational acts of a small percentage of them.
He was right in what he said, and on this occasion you were mistaken in your interpretation.
I might as well make a "I have a Black friend" post in response to gang violence in Detroit
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Right on.......but its our constitution. You know AMERICA'S constitution for Americans.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: AmericanRealist
dont give a #, Trumps plans are ALL covered in United States law and powers that several presidents have exercised to an extent.
Emotional Edward Bernays bull# marketing wont work on me, and it wont work on a good lot of people either.
Translation: The constitution says its ok to legislate bigotry, so good enough for me.
Just as a side note...The 1st amendment, speaking directly to restraints demanded of Lawmakers..forbids them from passing any laws that discriminate based on religion.
Those lawmakers are who the 1st amendment speaks to...not us citizens...not aliens...so those who claim that it does not speak to aliens...correct...it speaks to US Citizens, namely Lawmakers and makes them passing legislation discriminating by religion illegal...>Doesn't matter if that legislation faces US Citizens or Aliens or folks from mars...it restrains lawmakers.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
In addition, exclusions of certain religions is establishment by default. Anyone who took a law class in Highschool can recognize that and the SCOTUS would certainly determine the same.
Iran and similar theocracies outlaw religions.
Strange to see a similar ideology find so much public support amongst the right wing.
I mean if our constitution applied to everyone else in the world then why don't we liberate those poor North Korean people from Kim Jong. I mean surly he is breaking our constitution right?
Or perhaps all those supressed raped degraded women that are treated like pets in some other countrys?
I eagerly await a response to this one.