Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 365

Thread: After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to ‘test’ every Muslim in the U.S. and deport sharia believers

  1. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I've made my points quite clearly.

    I've done so repeatedly.

    Your failure to grasp simple concepts really isn't my concern beyond your public misinterpretations.

    Occam came along and rephrased what I've typed, quite clearly if I do say so, and yet you still insist on crying"the bogey man cometh save me government"..

    There may be no helping you.......
    You post outrage that is left open to interpretation. You totally failed to present your position and have left it to other posters here that know your ideological beliefs to post what they think is an interpretation.

    You could have said you are for abolishing the federal government and leaving immigration control to the states or local level but you did not. That seems to be the interpretation people that know you here are guessing.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    "I see nothing inherently anarchistic in what he has said". Total elimination of government and no immigration controls which sounded like where he was going does sound more like Anarachism to me.
    Leaving aside semantic quibbles about anarchism not implying absence of government (but only absence of monopoly of government), tod did not say anything about the "total elimination of government." Nor for that matter did he even say anything about "no immigration controls." His concern is with the already vastly overweening U.S. federal government. Let Ozarkians have the "statist" government of their own choosing and the immigration controls of their own choosing - or even the lack thereof with respect to either. Why should Idahoans or Floridians or etc. have any say in the matter?
    "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana (paraphrase)

    Unfortunately, those who do learn from history are doomed to repeat it, too - because they unwisely imagine that what they've learned makes them clever enough to get away with it this time ...



    MOFA - Make Orwell Fiction Again

  4. #333
    Aahhh....
    I just got a neg rep from kahless "for your obnoxious tirade". Isn't that sweet.

    And I have never neg repped you kahless- even after you lied and said I did. Not even after you inferred that I was a Muslim and belittled my Christian Ministry.

    Go find your mother- she's calling you.

    So.

    Freedom, anyone? I'll take mine black, white, and mocha.
    @cajuncocoa? @tod evans ? @Occam's Banana? @nikcers? @phill4paul? @69360?
    Last edited by Ender; 07-17-2016 at 06:14 PM.
    There is no spoon.

  5. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    Ironic isn't it. People are so short sighted that they do not want to restrict anyone elses liberty, even if there are people who want to take away our Liberties and/or our life by us being so gracious by allowing their Liberty. Some people can't see the forest because of the trees. Some people just think the threat isn't real...

    This video posted by Golden Equity helps explain it:



    I understand the fear of having the Fed grow and have more power by then monitoring more, it is a real fear.

    But so is having an enemy infiltrate and take over... which is why I wrote this in another thread on Burka banning:



    Our choices suck either way you slice them. If you don't think the threat of Islam is real, I think you are not aware of the dangers. It isn't fear of a boogie man when actions have shown over and over again what the intent is...
    So help me understand how granting Fed-Gov more authority is going to address the problem?

    Remember it was Fed-Gov who has brought the majority of Muslims to these shores in the first place and it is Fed-Gov who prevents communities from refusing entry to them....

    I can't see any good that'll come from permitting Fed-Gov to remain involved once foreigners are within states borders, in any capacity.

    Many states would immediately bar entry and evict the offensive, not just Muslims, but for Fed-Gov...

    Those who create a problem and then offer a solution usually have an agenda.

    What does Fed-Gov or it's string pullers have to gain by discord or the solution?

  6. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    So help me understand how granting Fed-Gov more authority is going to address the problem?

    Remember it was Fed-Gov who has brought the majority of Muslims to these shores in the first place and it is Fed-Gov who prevents communities from refusing entry to them....

    I can't see any good that'll come from permitting Fed-Gov to remain involved once foreigners are within states borders, in any capacity.

    Many states would immediately bar entry and evict the offensive, not just Muslims, but for Fed-Gov...

    Those who create a problem and then offer a solution usually have an agenda.

    What does Fed-Gov or it's string pullers have to gain by discord or the solution?
    I can agree with you there. I would not at all be surprised if they created the problem (ISIS and other incidents) to provide a solution of more surveillance that removes rights. Not surprised at all.

    But that still does not dismiss the real threat and problem.

    So what is your solution outside the Fed to deal with the problem? Allowing Muslims to continue unfettered, under the protection of Liberty, is a fools errand.

    I want both. I want to keep the Fed and surveillance at bay, but also want to protect Liberty from those who wish to destroy Liberty. And Islam, at it's core, is not for Liberty, in any shape or form. So if you have a solution to both, I am all ears.
    Once you go Paul, you see through them all.

  7. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Leaving aside semantic quibbles about anarchism not implying absence of government (but only absence of monopoly of government), tod did not say anything about the "total elimination of government." Nor for that matter did he even say anything about "no immigration controls." His concern is with the already vastly overweening U.S. federal government. Let Ozarkians have the "statist" government of their own choosing and the immigration controls of their own choosing - or even the lack thereof with respect to either. Why should Idahoans or Floridians or etc. have any say in the matter?
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I'm arguing that government has done too much it's time to shut it down.
    No mention of federal, just "government" which is why I came to that conclusion. His position is not without merit and I would have agreed with him a few years ago. However seeing how Progressive some states are on immigration I could see one turning into a Middle Eastern country hell holes throughout the country if they had their way.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #337
    //
    Last edited by cajuncocoa; 07-19-2016 at 08:55 AM.

  10. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    I can agree with you there. I would not at all be surprised if they created the problem (ISIS and other incidents) to provide a solution of more surveillance that removes rights. Not surprised at all.

    But that still does not dismiss the real threat and problem.

    So what is your solution outside the Fed to deal with the problem? Allowing Muslims to continue unfettered, under the protection of Liberty, is a fools errand.

    I want both. I want to keep the Fed and surveillance at bay, but also want to protect Liberty from those who wish to destroy Liberty. And Islam, at it's core, is not for Liberty, in any shape or form. So if you have a solution to both, I am all ears.
    To me the only logical solution seems to be viewing government and her terrorists as one in the same.

    Your neighbors, and mine, who work for Fed-Gov have brought this issue to our doorsteps.

    How, when and if any of us choose to address the issue should never be discussed within reach of their surveillance...

  11. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    No mention of federal, just "government" which is why I came to that conclusion. His position is not without merit and I would have agreed with him a few years ago. However seeing how Progressive some states are on immigration I could see one turning into a Middle Eastern country hell holes throughout the country if they had their way.
    Surely some would, how is that another states problem?

    Let people be with like kind, federal oversight and planning doesn't work, look around.

  12. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Surely some would, how is that another states problem?

    Let people be with like kind, federal oversight and planning doesn't work, look around.
    I think having an Iraq within the US would happen way too quickly moving immigration controls to the states at this point. When things start falling a part however that probably will be the way to go. Homogeneity worked for a long time with federal immigration controls until they started messing things up in the last 50 or so years.

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I am hell bent on securing your freedom to effectively remove any type of people you find offensive from your town county or even state.

    I'm also hell bent on preventing you or anyone else from granting Fed-Gov the powers to impose their ideas of equality and inclusiveness on those people who don't want it.
    Well one thing you are right on is that I totally misread this quote as, "I am hell bent against securing your freedom to effectively remove any type of people you find offensive". Which is why mistakenly lumped you in with Ender and 6930 who were pushing the intolerance accusations.

    My bad, sorry about that which caused things to go south after that. Just ignore a couple of the replies after that.
    Last edited by kahless; 07-17-2016 at 06:53 PM.

  13. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    To me the only logical solution seems to be viewing government and her terrorists as one in the same.

    Your neighbors, and mine, who work for Fed-Gov have brought this issue to our doorsteps.

    How, when and if any of us choose to address the issue should never be discussed within reach of their surveillance...
    Ok, fair enough. So you agree there is a problem with Islam and it's directives? As a few on these threads feel that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and mean no harm, despite the evidence to the contrary. That Islam does not want to take over the world and have everyone follow Islam or be killed. That is my issue. They do not want to coexist peaceful based upon their directives from the Quran. Sure, they can assimilate and be peaceful in a minority, but as soon as they are able to outgrow minority status, that changes. And that is the threat the Liberty. And why we need to defend Liberty.

    So are you arguing what approach is best to deal with the issue of Islam, and you are not in favor of the Fed doing that given they will abuse it, or do you not agree there is a problem to begin with? I have not read all posts in this thread... Sorry.

    I want people to be free to do as they wish, as long as it does not harm another, or want to restrict another from the same freedom. Islam does not feel that way. They have hard and fast rules that must be obeyed. And anyone who is a Muslim or subscribes to Islam must recognize that, even if they are of a light "sect" or not.

    And I agree the the Fed has enabled many of these issues and problems we face, and is not a friend to Liberty most of the time either. And to ask for their help to these issues has it's own level of pitfalls.

    But grouping both the enabler (Fed) and the terrorist into a common enemy, makes the task far more insurmountable. If there is a way to protect Liberty from the threat of Islam, and not use the Fed to do it, I am open to that. But fighting 2 battles at once... well, damn. So I again ask, are we doomed to either a tyrannical big brother police state, or an all-out religious war, or both?
    Once you go Paul, you see through them all.

  14. #342
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    I think having an Iraq within the US would happen way too quickly moving immigration controls to the states at this point. When things start falling a part however that probably will be the way to go. Homogeneity worked for a long time with federal immigration controls until they started messing things up in the last 50 or so years.



    Well one thing you are right on is that I totally misread this quote as, "I am hell bent against securing your freedom to effectively remove any type of people you find offensive". Which is why mistakenly lumped you in with Ender and 6930 who were pushing the intolerance accusations.

    My bad, sorry about that which caused things to go south after that. Just ignore a couple of the replies after that.
    It very well might.

    But without Fed-Gov in the mix that state(s) will have a very difficult go of it.

    Judging by folks in these parts Fed money is the only reason a whole lot of problems exist in the US today.

    People are generally good, they'll help one another, strangers too, until someone pisses in their Cheerios...

    Fed-Gov insists on holding your bowl and their dick before you're served.....I don't see the need.

    And Thank You for the apology!

  15. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    Ok, fair enough. So you agree there is a problem with Islam and it's directives? As a few on these threads feel that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and mean no harm, despite the evidence to the contrary. That Islam does not want to take over the world and have everyone follow Islam or be killed. That is my issue. They do not want to coexist peaceful based upon their directives from the Quran. Sure, they can assimilate and be peaceful in a minority, but as soon as they are able to outgrow minority status, that changes. And that is the threat the Liberty. And why we need to defend Liberty.

    So are you arguing what approach is best to deal with the issue of Islam, and you are not in favor of the Fed doing that given they will abuse it, or do you not agree there is a problem to begin with? I have not read all posts in this thread... Sorry.

    I want people to be free to do as they wish, as long as it does not harm another, or want to restrict another from the same freedom. Islam does not feel that way. They have hard and fast rules that must be obeyed. And anyone who is a Muslim or subscribes to Islam must recognize that, even if they are of a light "sect" or not.

    And I agree the the Fed has enabled many of these issues and problems we face, and is not a friend to Liberty most of the time either. And to ask for their help to these issues has it's own level of pitfalls.

    But grouping both the enabler (Fed) and the terrorist into a common enemy, makes the task far more insurmountable. If there is a way to protect Liberty from the threat of Islam, and not use the Fed to do it, I am open to that. But fighting 2 battles at once... well, damn. So I again ask, are we doomed to either a tyrannical big brother police state, or an all-out religious war, or both?
    On a day to day basis how much does Sharia law influence your life compared to government regulation? At what point do you say to yourself "Muslims aren't the problem, they are a distraction?" In the span of a decade those wearing government uniforms have killed more than "terrorists" have. There are between 2-7 million Muslims in the U.S. right now. We aren't in any danger of being overthrown. The Fed/State/Local gov. employees...add that up. Then we will talk about "Danger, will Robinson."

  16. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    On a day to day basis how much does Sharia law influence your life compared to government regulation? At what point do you say to yourself "Muslims aren't the problem, they are a distraction?" In the span of a decade those wearing government uniforms have killed more than "terrorists" have. There are between 2-7 million Muslims in the U.S. right now. We aren't in any danger of being overthrown. The Fed/State/Local gov. employees...add that up. Then we will talk about "Danger, will Robinson."
    Again, if someone lit your house on fire, if you were sane, you'd first put out the fire and then go after the person(s) who set it. Yes, the government caused the problem, but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't need to be rectified along with getting the government back within its constitutional boundaries (or to secede from the union).
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    (or to secede from the union).
    So you're also for destroying the country now?

  19. #346


    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  20. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Again, if someone lit your house on fire, if you were sane, you'd first put out the fire and then go after the person(s) who set it. Yes, the government caused the problem, but that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't need to be rectified along with getting the government back within its constitutional boundaries (or to secede from the union).
    Who set the house on fire? Muslims and South American Immigrants or the Federal Government? Muslims and South American immigrants have not gotten us where we are at right now. They don't have the numbers ( as a national total ), never did and won't for at least a couple of centuries.

    I personally like the idea of secession. I've pretty much done so as much as I can as an individual. I pay a local property tax but have not payed state or Fed for over 6 yrs. I'm actually doing something about it. And I'm committed.

    However, many on this forum would label me an "anarchist" or "un-American." I'm not saying you would. Just some that would take the idea of actually breaking with the idea of a Federal Government that steals from it's citizens as well as borrow from the banks and charge the citizens the interest, to fund the $#@! we do.

    It's a big mess, that it is. But, there is nothing out there that scares me more than this government. Not Muslims, not "illegal" aliens, not the Bloods or the Crips or MS-13. Not the Outlaws, not the Hell's Angels, not a black man, not even Trump supporters.

  21. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor View Post
    Ok, fair enough. So you agree there is a problem with Islam and it's directives? As a few on these threads feel that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and mean no harm, despite the evidence to the contrary. That Islam does not want to take over the world and have everyone follow Islam or be killed. That is my issue. They do not want to coexist peaceful based upon their directives from the Quran. Sure, they can assimilate and be peaceful in a minority, but as soon as they are able to outgrow minority status, that changes. And that is the threat the Liberty. And why we need to defend Liberty.

    So are you arguing what approach is best to deal with the issue of Islam, and you are not in favor of the Fed doing that given they will abuse it, or do you not agree there is a problem to begin with? I have not read all posts in this thread... Sorry.

    I want people to be free to do as they wish, as long as it does not harm another, or want to restrict another from the same freedom. Islam does not feel that way. They have hard and fast rules that must be obeyed. And anyone who is a Muslim or subscribes to Islam must recognize that, even if they are of a light "sect" or not.

    And I agree the the Fed has enabled many of these issues and problems we face, and is not a friend to Liberty most of the time either. And to ask for their help to these issues has it's own level of pitfalls.

    But grouping both the enabler (Fed) and the terrorist into a common enemy, makes the task far more insurmountable. If there is a way to protect Liberty from the threat of Islam, and not use the Fed to do it, I am open to that. But fighting 2 battles at once... well, damn. So I again ask, are we doomed to either a tyrannical big brother police state, or an all-out religious war, or both?
    I have no knowledge of Muslims, don't know any and am absolutely unqualified to judge one let along a whole batch.

    That said........Foreigners here in the Ozarks come from their cities, they bring their city ways and their city ideas, usually within 4-5 years they either acclimate or leave..I'd imagine Muslims would be the same.

    Honestly though it doesn't matter, the Fed-Gov and her enforcers have changed the character of these hills over the last 40 odd years to where city folk actually feel safe roaming around and trying to exert influence..

    Having lived here both with and without Feds and Fed money my opinion is that the Feds offer more trouble than merit..

    I'm sure people in the cities or on the coasts feel differently and I don't want my feeling or behavior to affect them any more than I want their behavior to affect me...

    To me the issue at large is the Fed-Gov more-so than the Muslims or Mexicans or any other race or religion....Without Fed-Gov to protect and support these newcomers they too would have to acclimate or leave..

  22. #349
    Newt may have more to work with , Drudge is reporting NOI membership for most recent suspected terrorist :




    Baton Rouge Shooter Gavin Long Was Nation Of Islam Member...







    Related

    Head of Cleveland Police Union on Baton Rouge: Obama Has ‘Blood on His Hands’

    by Josh Feldman | 1:09 pm, July 17th, 2016



    The head of a Cleveland police union reacted to the shooting of multiple officers in Baton Rouge by going off on President Obama and a media culture that helps boost anti-cop narratives.

    Detective Steve Loomis said that the shootings of police officers, from Dallas to now, started with what he deemed as a completely false narrative concerning the death of Alton Sterling.
    He said that Obama has “validated the false narrative and the nonsense that Black Lives Matter and the media are pressing out there,” and he said the president has “blood on his hands” that he won’t be able to wash off.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/head-of-c...-on-his-hands/

  23. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    So you're also for destroying the country now?
    Not at all. However, if enough Communists and their useful idiots keep at it, there may be little choice left to survive what is coming.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  24. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Not at all. However, if enough Communists and their useful idiots keep at it, there may be little choice left to survive what is coming.
    But when someone you disagree with says that, you claim they are want to destroy the country.

  25. #352
    //
    Last edited by cajuncocoa; 07-19-2016 at 08:56 AM.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I'm not sure you're understanding LE at all, erowe. (It's not secession that destroys the country.) Let me help.


    • If you want to allow non-white people to cross our borders, you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
    • If you want to allow non-white culture to mix with "ours", you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
    • If you think it's OK our country to trade with countries where non-white people live, you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to cajuncocoa again."

    And may you not be banned for speaking this truth.

  28. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I'm not sure you're understanding LE at all, erowe. (It's not secession that destroys the country.) Let me help.


    • If you want to allow non-white people to cross our borders, you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
    • If you want to allow non-white culture to mix with "ours", you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
    • If you think it's OK our country to trade with countries where non-white people live, you might be guilty of wanting to destroy the country.
    That is a false characterization of the issue. I think you are doing this on purpose.

    For me personally I am on with closed or open borders. What I am not Ok is with leftists lying about people who want to control the borders to only let in the best people.

  29. #355
    //
    Last edited by cajuncocoa; 07-19-2016 at 08:56 AM.

  30. #356
    John Derbyshire has just released a short essay on the matter. It pretty much reflects my opinion on the situation.

    Worth a read:

    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/after...ocity-in-nice/

    excerpt:

    I have never read the Koran and at this point I most likely never shall. It looks really boring. I can’t offer an informed opinion about Islam, any more than 99.9 percent of other Americans can. I certainly don’t wish any harm to Muslims in general. Jolly good luck to them all. Hate? Not here.

    But t is surely obvious that if you let masses of Muslims settle in your non-Muslim country, you’ve gotten yourself some frictions and problems you didn’t have before. Why bring such troubles on yourself?

    Yet we keep doubling down. There’s a sickness here, some kind of civilizational sickness.Chiang Kai-shek, quoted above, was correct about the Chinese Communists, as the tens of millions of victims of their tyranny would testify, if they could.

    Similarly today in the Western world. I don’t mean to speak lightly of the horror we saw on our TV screens Thursday. But these assaults are a disease of the skin. They’re not going to destroy our nations, not by themselves, not even in they happen once a week. They’re a disease of the skin.

    The real menace, the disease eating away at the heart of Western society, is white ethnomasochism: hatred of one’s own type, one’s own race, one’s own ancestors, one’s own parents, one’s own fellow citizens who do not share a bizarrely unreal and idealistic view of human nature.

  31. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty View Post
    The real menace, the disease eating away at the heart of Western society, is white ethnomasochism: hatred of one’s own type, one’s own race, one’s own ancestors, one’s own parents, one’s own fellow citizens who do not share a bizarrely unreal and idealistic view of human nature.[/i]
    What kind of skewed self-imposed blindness can make someone think this way?

    Not being a white nationalist does not equal hating white people.

  32. #358
    //
    Last edited by cajuncocoa; 07-19-2016 at 08:56 AM.

  33. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    So- no 1st Amendment for you, amirite?
    Not really. Sharia itself is the biggest violation of the 1st Amendment of all and is therefore not to be tolerated in our country.
    I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!

    Andrew Jackson, 1834

  34. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    Not really. Sharia itself is the biggest violation of the 1st Amendment of all and is therefore not to be tolerated in our country.
    How about if you just don't tolerate it on your own property, and be a noninterventionist when it comes to what rules others want to impose on themselves on their property?



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •