• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald trump calls for barring Muslims from entering US

JasperL said:
First of all, I accurately described the range, and second, your observations had nothing to do with the very simple point I've made about 10 times now and that you don't address. It was repeated right there in the part you quoted, and you ignored it, again. Pretty funny.
Click to expand...

Um no your portrayal of the survey was intentionally misleading as only a minority of countries surveyed had a homophobic rate less than 70% whereas a plurality of countries surveyed had a homophobic rate of 80% and higher.

The majority of Muslims are homophobic in the high 90 percentile to be exact, the majority of Christians in the US are not homophobic, so what was your point again? Because you don't seem to have one.
 
Last edited:
starcitizen said:
No facts have been presented just the word of a proven liar. If he is receiving all of these death threats why is he not recording them so that they can be provided as evidence to the authorities?



Andre Carson's True Colors - Breitbart
Click to expand...


Before I answer I must remark the article you present as proof from Breitbart……… I think it fair to say for me…. .is one of the more vicious “news” report I have real in a long time……. It is so venomously slanted (and that is a kind description) it raises questions about its accuracy and/or truthfulness….

But let’s say for the sake of argument the basic facts are accurate………… It is my reading of the event is it is a case of “he said; she said” ………Carson’s says the event occurred………. Breitbart said it didn’t…….
Which in my mind cannot be the basis for calling the man a liar……… The other so-called “lies” IMO are – right or wrong – just his personal opinions………. You may not like what Carson says……but one cannot call it a lie………

I checked other news reports of the event……. which basically said………. there was no proof either way……so one would be hard pressed to call Carson a liar


And I would like to remind you…………. even if it were a lie…………. It does not mean everything Carson says is a lie……………. He too as us all……. from time to time…………. are truthful…………

And in these incidences……………given the tensions and rancor of the time his account was very possible………. or would not be considered……far fetched

BTW
But what I find troubling is the shameful and unnecessary character assignation which had nothing to do with the event in question………...Of all the RW material I read every day………. Breitbart is by far the most “over the top” slanted………….and that is being kind………….. anything they print is more than questionable…

I sure hope you don’t rely upon then as a news source
 
starcitizen said:
Um no your portrayal of the survey was intentionally misleading as only a minority of countries surveyed had a homophobic rate less than 70% whereas a plurality of countries surveyed had a homophobic rate of 80% and higher.

The majority of Muslims are homophobic in the high 90 percentile to be exact, the majority of Christians in the US are not homophobic, so what was your point again? Because you don't seem to have one.
Click to expand...

You're very funny. Quoting me, this thread, to you (I repeated it many other times to other posters this thread):

But back on point, it's simply this: 1) not ALL Muslims are "homophobes", and 2) large numbers of non-Muslims ARE "homophobes" (including a majority of the GOP!), which was my original and quite obviously correct observation.
Click to expand...

"I responded to a stupid suggestion that substituting "homophobes" for "Muslim" would yield "the same" results for immigration/travel purposes. It's wrong."

Nothing you've argued even attempts to address that simple point, which was actually the ONLY point I was trying to make.
Click to expand...
 
JasperL said:
You're very funny. Quoting me, this thread, to you (I repeated it many other times to other posters this thread):
Click to expand...
You are not supporting your points of virew with any stats, For example, you use those who favor marriage between a man and a woman as 'homophobic'. This is inaccurate. There is nothing to compare with the Islamic attitudes toward the homosexual community. Nothing!
 
David_N said:
I wish I was joking. Does he even recognize that this is what ISIS wants?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?_r=0
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a good idea to bar all Muslims from entering the US but I am ok with restricting travelling visas temporarily if there is a real problem. It is obvious at this point that we will need to take down ISIS and get some ground troops on the ground to support the Iraqi government. I also think we should bar all Syrian refugees from entering the US because of the possibility that ISIS gets some of its members into the US that way.

I don't have any problem with Muslims but our national security should be our #1 priority.
 
David_N said:
I wish I was joking. Does he even recognize that this is what ISIS wants?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/?_r=0
Click to expand...

Who cares what ISIS wants?

"Churchill is just what Hitler WANTS!" cries Neville Chamberlain.

Such statements are just cliches.

Appeasement is what both ISIS and Muslims want. Appeasement is when everybody has to tiptoe around their feelings and orbit around them. We all have lives to lead, and we shouldn't have to orbit around their feelings and sensitivities. If they don't like it, then tough luck for them.
 
imyoda said:
Before I answer I must remark the article you present as proof from Breitbart……… I think it fair to say for me…. .is one of the more vicious “news” report I have real in a long time……. It is so venomously slanted (and that is a kind description) it raises questions about its accuracy and/or truthfulness….

But let’s say for the sake of argument the basic facts are accurate………… It is my reading of the event is it is a case of “he said; she said” ………Carson’s says the event occurred………. Breitbart said it didn’t…….
Which in my mind cannot be the basis for calling the man a liar……… The other so-called “lies” IMO are – right or wrong – just his personal opinions………. You may not like what Carson says……but one cannot call it a lie………

I checked other news reports of the event……. which basically said………. there was no proof either way……so one would be hard pressed to call Carson a liar


And I would like to remind you…………. even if it were a lie…………. It does not mean everything Carson says is a lie……………. He too as us all……. from time to time…………. are truthful…………

And in these incidences……………given the tensions and rancor of the time his account was very possible………. or would not be considered……far fetched

BTW
But what I find troubling is the shameful and unnecessary character assignation which had nothing to do with the event in question………...Of all the RW material I read every day………. Breitbart is by far the most “over the top” slanted………….and that is being kind………….. anything they print is more than questionable…

I sure hope you don’t rely upon then as a news source
Click to expand...

You talk and talk and say nothing the event was recorded by several people and at several angles and no video/audio evidence has caught these alleged slurs to this date despite the offer of Breibart of $100 thousand to present it. Andre Carson is a proven liar and a race baiter and his claims that tea partiers want to hang blacks are a matter of the public record as are the video recordings of the event in which he claimed people were hurling racial slurs.
 
distraff said:
I don't think it is a good idea to bar all Muslims from entering the US but I am ok with restricting travelling visas temporarily if there is a real problem. It is obvious at this point that we will need to take down ISIS and get some ground troops on the ground to support the Iraqi government. I also think we should bar all Syrian refugees from entering the US because of the possibility that ISIS gets some of its members into the US that way.

I don't have any problem with Muslims but our national security should be our #1 priority.
Click to expand...

Agree completely.

I view our country as I do my home. I make a decision who I allow to come into my house. My first obligation is to protect my family. I do not need to be 'nice', politically correct, etc...I need foremost to protect my family. If there is a doubt, the a stranger is not coming in the door.

There may be a major attack on our soil. Some type of chemical, nuclear device, etc. We should be not only vigilant but prudent. Proactive in preventing incidents.

As for feeding the fire. If a few Muslims are so offended by words, cartoons that they justify murdering our children, then this is all the more reason for a temporary restriction. Someone calls Allah a pig so they justify murder'? I do not want these unstable people in my country.
 
sanman said:
Who cares what ISIS wants?

"Churchill is just what Hitler WANTS!" cries Neville Chamberlain.

Such statements are just cliches.

Appeasement is what both ISIS and Muslims want. Appeasement is when everybody has to tiptoe around their feelings and orbit around them. We all have lives to lead, and we shouldn't have to orbit around their feelings and sensitivities. If they don't like it, then tough luck for them.
Click to expand...

These people talk out of both sides of their mouth they simultaneously argue that they attack us in order to draw the US deeper into ME conflict and also because they want the US out of the ME apparently everything is what ISIS wants according to these people.

In reality what they really want is the establishment of a global caliphate and the death, conversion, or subjugation of all non-Sunni Muslims.
 
Grant said:
Wrong. It applies go the people. The government cannot give people rights, They can only remove them.
Click to expand...

...the first amendment bars the government from taking certain actions.
 
Grant said:
Wrong. It applies go the people. The government cannot give people rights, They can only remove them.
Click to expand...

Right, and relevant to this issue, free people must have a right to travel, which would include the right to freely cross borders. Governments remove/restrict that right, and you're supporting an effort to remove the right to travel to the U.S. from 1.5 billion individuals.

So the relevant question is whether it's constitutional for the government to ban travel/immigration to the U.S. based solely on a religious test.
 
JasperL said:
Right, and relevant to this issue, free people must have a right to travel, which would include the right to freely cross borders. Governments remove/restrict that right, and you're supporting an effort to remove the right to travel to the U.S. from 1.5 billion individuals.

So the relevant question is whether it's constitutional for the government to ban travel/immigration to the U.S. based solely on a religious test.
Click to expand...
Of course the US has the right to bar anyone it wants, just has Canada has done in the past. We may tsk tsk the morality but not the law.

And, as we know, all the people of the world are not free. If more countries were to adopt the US Constitution there would be more freedom but powerful politicians in other parts of the world would never want that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom