Jimmy Carter Announces ban on Iranian Immigration to US

a reply to: neoholographic

You're comparing apples to liquid nitrogen.

The two situations are not the same.

a reply to: neoholographic

No, because if you read my OP it's much more than that.

Yes it certainly is.

There's whole lotta stuff going on in your OP such as:

- mental gymnastics
- erroneous analogies
- misguided connections
- logical fallacies
- inaccurate historical interpretations
- internet memes

And much much more.

There's a little something there for everyone !

a reply to: neoholographic

Why do Trump supporters grasp at so many straws to support Trump's xenophobic ideas? Just own them. I thought y'all were trying to buck political correctness? So why are you caving to it? Just admit it's xenophobic already. If you want to support a xenophobic ideal, that is perfectly fine within the Constitution, but you guys aren't fooling anyone by trying to come up with all these justifications on why these policies are bigoted or xenophobic.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic

Why do Trump supporters grasp at so many straws to support Trump's xenophobic ideas? Just own them. I thought y'all were trying to buck political correctness? So why are you caving to it? Just admit it's xenophobic already.

I have been thinking this as well.

If you are going to adopt a xenophobic/racist/islamophobic (or whatever you want to call it) view point then just own it.

If you really think about it, it actually undermines their beliefs that they dont just face up to what they really are, as if they know its bad because of the label so they try to pretend its something its not.

its like trying to dress up the xenophobic pig, its still a pig.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yea. It's a weird double standard. It's like deep down they understand that these ideas really ARE bigoted and hateful, so they have to distract all conversations away from labeling them as such. It really makes them look hypocritical though.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

For quite a lot of the world race is more then the colour of your skin.

And they would be entirely wrong.

Religion is a choice. It's learned behavior.

.

Entirely wrong? Do you live in a dream world? Maybe for some religion is a choice. But for many if not most it is indoctrinated from birth, so that the child, the youth, the adult has hardly any choice at all as to what to believe. And in many cases, when one does begin to question the validity of their own religion, it is not to dump it entirely but rather to take it to it's more dramatic interpretations which leads to extremism.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neoholographic
I guess Jimmy Carter is a right wing racist.

How does a complete break in diplomatic relations, in response to the hostage crisis, translate to racism?

While I don't support Trump's statements; his rationale is so very different from Carter's at that point in history.

I don't think it was that different. None of the hostages were killed, and they were in Iran. There were people who were killed by Muslims in this counrtry. IMO, Carter was just as bad as Trump, for those that are trashing Trump. The libs were just as bad 35 years ago, not only in words but in actions. Carter cut immigration for innocent Iranians and deported innocent Iranian college students.

*** double post ***

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yea. It's a weird double standard. It's like deep down they understand that these ideas really ARE bigoted and hateful, so they have to distract all conversations away from labeling them as such. It really makes them look hypocritical though.

I think you just summed up the point perfectly.

They know that to have the view that banning all Muslims is actually xenophobic so they try to defend it as something else. So its not xenophobic rather they argue its a national security issue or use some other excuse, just take this thread for example where they try to argue that Jimmy carter has gave them a non-xenophobic precedent for this.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: neoholographic
I guess Jimmy Carter is a right wing racist.

How does a complete break in diplomatic relations, in response to the hostage crisis, translate to racism?

While I don't support Trump's statements; his rationale is so very different from Carter's at that point in history.

I don't think it was that different. None of the hostages were killed, and they were in Iran. There were people who were killed by Muslims in this counrtry. IMO, Carter was just as bad as Trump, for those that are trashing Trump. The libs were just as bad 35 years ago, not only in words but in actions. Carter cut immigration for innocent Iranians and deported innocent Iranian college students.

This is a limp attempt to paint Trump's bigotry in a different light. Carter did this as a result of a NATIONS actions against America. Trump want to keep out Muslims of many countries. Then again, Carter allowed Iranians to enter that swore against the Iranian regime. Medical patients were also allowed. It was a nice try but fails the logic test.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic

Why do Trump supporters grasp at so many straws to support Trump's xenophobic ideas? Just own them. I thought y'all were trying to buck political correctness? So why are you caving to it? Just admit it's xenophobic already. If you want to support a xenophobic ideal, that is perfectly fine within the Constitution, but you guys aren't fooling anyone by trying to come up with all these justifications on why these policies are bigoted or xenophobic.

What most people view as bigoted and xenophobic, some view as preserving the safety of US citizens. It's funny that there are some Muslims who agree with Trump, so I guess some Muslims are bigoted and xenophobic against other Muslims like the imam who says he was forcd to resign because he agrees with Trump. www.fox4beaumont.com... .shtml

We also banned Communism in the 1950's, and get this:

(from wiki):

The International Security Act of 1950 had defined two types of “communist organizations.” Senator Butler later proposed a bill aimed at the removal of Communists from leadership positions in labor unions, adding a third class, that of “communist-infiltrated organizations.” Afterwards, Democratic Senator Humphrey put forward a substitute to that bill with the intention of directly tackling the “root of evil,” the Communist Party members.[5] Through an amendment by Senator Daniel, both the Butler and Humphrey bills were merged into one, winning unanimous approval in the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans.
Support

The overwhelming support provided by the liberals has attracted much attention from historians such as Mary McAuliffe (The Journal of American History). McAuliffe argues that, despite the liberals’ traditional role as the protectors of fundamental rights and civil liberties, the perceived gravity of the threat of Communism during the Cold War led some liberals to ignore the fact that the CCA suspended the citizenship rights of the Communist Party members. Most liberals did not even offer a token opposition to the Act; on the contrary, they ardently supported it. McAuliffe further acknowledges that the Act “served to avert possible disaster for individual politicians” who feared being labeled as Communists for their left-minded ideas. In the words of Senator Humphrey, “the amendment [was sought] to remove any doubt in the Senate as to where [Democrats and liberals] [stood] on the issue of Communism.” [2] An article published in the Michigan Law Review in 1955 suggested that the Communist Control Act was a “dramatic political gesture” rather than a genuine attempt to “kill Communism at its root.”[4]

McAuliffe underlines the anomalies surrounding the Act; in particular, the Act was unorthodox since it bypassed the usual process of committee hearings and deliberations and was immediately introduced to the Senate floor. It is interesting to note that the Act has no recorded legislated history, undoubtedly because it was rush-printed in the early hours of the morning. In 1955, an outraged American Civil Liberties Union characterized it as “a mockery of… [Americans’] most basic constitutional guarantees.”[2] Mary S. McAuliffe commented that use of the Communist Control Act of 1954 was an illustration of “how deeply McCarthyism penetrated American society.”[2]

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic

Why do Trump supporters grasp at so many straws to support Trump's xenophobic ideas? Just own them. I thought y'all were trying to buck political correctness? So why are you caving to it? Just admit it's xenophobic already. If you want to support a xenophobic ideal, that is perfectly fine within the Constitution, but you guys aren't fooling anyone by trying to come up with all these justifications on why these policies are bigoted or xenophobic.

What most people view as bigoted and xenophobic, some view as preserving the safety of US citizens. It's funny that there are some Muslims who agree with Trump, so I guess some Muslims are bigoted and xenophobic against other Muslims like the imam who says he was forcd to resign because he agrees with Trump. www.fox4beaumont.com... .shtml

But even that is fundamentally xenophobic.

I think OP has a point.

George Washington owned slaves, if it was good enough for him, it should be good enough for us.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic

Why do Trump supporters grasp at so many straws to support Trump's xenophobic ideas? Just own them. I thought y'all were trying to buck political correctness? So why are you caving to it? Just admit it's xenophobic already. If you want to support a xenophobic ideal, that is perfectly fine within the Constitution, but you guys aren't fooling anyone by trying to come up with all these justifications on why these policies are bigoted or xenophobic.

What most people view as bigoted and xenophobic, some view as preserving the safety of US citizens. It's funny that there are some Muslims who agree with Trump, so I guess some Muslims are bigoted and xenophobic against other Muslims like the imam who says he was forcd to resign because he agrees with Trump. www.fox4beaumont.com... .shtml

But even that is fundamentally xenophobic.

My point exactly. I'm just pointing out it's not just the non-Muslim Trump followers who are xenophobic.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neoholographic

Why do Trump supporters grasp at so many straws to support Trump's xenophobic ideas? Just own them. I thought y'all were trying to buck political correctness? So why are you caving to it? Just admit it's xenophobic already. If you want to support a xenophobic ideal, that is perfectly fine within the Constitution, but you guys aren't fooling anyone by trying to come up with all these justifications on why these policies are bigoted or xenophobic.

What most people view as bigoted and xenophobic, some view as preserving the safety of US citizens. It's funny that there are some Muslims who agree with Trump, so I guess some Muslims are bigoted and xenophobic against other Muslims like the imam who says he was forcd to resign because he agrees with Trump. www.fox4beaumont.com... .shtml

Some view a gun ban as preserving the safety of U.S. citizens.

Others argue that it's wrong to punish law-abiding citizens because some criminals use guns to murder.

What Trump has proposed would punish law-biding U.S. citizens by not allowing their own families to even visit them. For example, a sizable portion of the physicians/surgeons in the hospital five blocks from me would not be able to have their own parents come to visit.

Good people would effectively be punished under Trump's broad ban against Muslims entering the country.

Trump could have proposed something more reasonable. But he went to the extreme and people will reject his ideas.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: neoholographic

First off Trump isn't going to ban all Muslims

Well lets hope thats true, lets hope he the republicans see sense and drop him.

There not going to drop him and he has a good chance of winning.

At the end of the day, Trump is playing the media and it's working. He gets tons of free media everytime he says something.

It's amazing to me how liberals say Hillary Clinton will easily beat Trump and if Trump wins the Democrats will win the House and Senate yet they're working overtime to defeat Trump now.

That makes no sense.

They do not say it the polls do. And the DNC attacks Trump because he is the face of the GOP right now. They can paint the entire GOP as a bunch of nut bags and that is just what they are doing. Just beating Trump in the general election would not be taking advantage the opportunity they have to completely destroy the GOP as mainstream political party in the US. Which is why the GOP will not let him win at the convention and already are making plans to keep him out. Although he claims he will leave the party if not respected but, so far the GOP has condemned him and is plotting against him hoping he will leave.

a reply to: UnBreakable

There were also some blacks that went along with segregation. I'm sure that doesn't make it wrong either right?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: FamCore

When was the last time you heard someone support the internment camps. They are a dark stain on America's history and you will be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks FDR was in the right.

We won the war, so I don't buy the "dark stain" claim. The protection of the greater majority of the country took precedence over the comfort of a small group that was linked to a country making war with us.