Hey Liberals.

reason10 · Dec 10, 2015

David_N · Dec 10, 2015

:roll:

MrT · Dec 10, 2015

Setting aside the fact that some did criticize him for this policy, it is because banning someone from a specific country does not require a religious test.

ttwtt78640 · Dec 10, 2015

Countries (nationalities?) are just like religions, only different.

Also note that Carter was not re-elected.

joG · Dec 10, 2015

reason10 said:

Carter was a brilliant person and totally out of his depths in that job.

MaggieD · Dec 10, 2015

reason10 said:

Good post. Even in the face of ridicule, we need to keep reminding people THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AMERICAN CITIZENS WANTING TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY FROM RADICAL MUSLIMS. We may need to tweak HOW we do that, but the dialog is very important.

Paperview · Dec 10, 2015

Three words: No religious test.

MaggieD · Dec 10, 2015

Paperview said:
Three words: No religious test.

I'm devil's advocating here.

Then why a radical Muslim test? Why keep people out who want to do us harm? Why screen them at all?

Why no religious test?

Zyphlin · Dec 10, 2015

MaggieD said:
Good post. Even in the face of ridicule, we need to keep reminding people THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AMERICAN CITIZENS WANTING TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY FROM RADICAL MUSLIMS. We may need to tweak HOW we do that, but the dialog is very important.

When people say extreme and outlandish hyperbolic statements about an issue, it actually serves to DESTROY any actual reasonable dialog about the issue, because instead of focusing on the issue people naturally focus on the extreme.

This is the issue with rhetoric similar to Trumps. This is the issue with people stupidly misunderstanding the difference between Political Correctness and simple tact. This is the issue with people mistaking hyperbole for reality. It's this kind of issue that is a highlight of why other instances where a dialog is important, such as the abortion debate, almost never actually generate any worth while discussion.

Is there a problem and threat from radical islam? Yes. However, if that is what people TRULY care about, there are significant other avenues that we as a country could take to attempt and combat that while still minimizing the actual harm and damaging actions done to those who wish to immigrate into this nation for honest and law abiding reasons which have no desire what so ever to harm or systematically change the United States. The ONLY reason to act as if a carte blanche ban of Muslim Entry is the only, or even primary, method in which this can be done is if in reality one simply wishes to be rid of, or feels the thread is, ALL muslims not simply those radicalized ones.

MaggieD · Dec 10, 2015

Zyphlin said:
When people say extreme and outlandish hyperbolic statements about an issue, it actually serves to DESTROY any actual reasonable dialog about the issue, because instead of focusing on the issue people naturally focus on the extreme.

This is the issue with rhetoric similar to Trumps. This is the issue with people stupidly misunderstanding the difference between Political Correctness and simple tact. This is the issue with people mistaking hyperbole for reality. It's this kind of issue that is a highlight of why other instances where a dialog is important, such as the abortion debate, almost never actually generate any worth while discussion.

Is there a problem and threat from radical islam? Yes. However, if that is what people TRULY care about, there are significant other avenues that we as a country could take to attempt and combat that while still minimizing the actual harm and damaging actions done to those who wish to immigrate into this nation for honest and law abiding reasons which have no desire what so ever to harm or systematically change the United States. The ONLY reason to act as if a carte blanche ban of Muslim Entry is the only, or even primary, method in which this can be done is if in reality one simply wishes to be rid of, or feels the thread is, ALL muslims not simply those radicalized ones.

Then we are not at war with radical Muslims. If we cannot protect ourselves from those inside and outside our country who would do us harm? WTF? Seriously. If people wonder why Trump resonates with so many people, it is because he says what people think and CAN'T say because they will be attacked.

When you are at war with a country, you don't let prospective soldiers immigrate. You don't allow sleepers in. Until the threat is neutralized, you keep them out.

We've got people telling the right they are scaredy cats to denigrate the belief that we need to take some common sense measures to protect ourselves. The right isn't afraid. Yet again, the right's beliefs are being ridiculed and denigrated because they don't fit the left's agenda. An agenda I don't even understand.

Did you hear the Director of the FBI before Congress? Yesterday, I think. On Fox this morning. We are falling behind. We can't read their encrypted correspondence. What?? How much clearer does it have to be before we realize what we're doing isn't working?

iguanaman · Dec 10, 2015

MaggieD said:
Then we are not at war with radical Muslims. If we cannot protect ourselves from those inside and outside our country who would do us harm? WTF? Seriously. If people wonder why Trump resonates with so many people, it is because he says what people think and CAN'T say because they will be attacked.

When you are at war with a country, you don't let prospective soldiers immigrate. You don't allow sleepers in. Until the threat is neutralized, you keep them out.

We've got people telling the right they are scaredy cats to denigrate the belief that we need to take some common sense measures to protect ourselves. The right isn't afraid. Yet again, the right's beliefs are being ridiculed and denigrated because they don't fit the left's agenda. An agenda I don't even understand.

Did you hear the Director of the FBI before Congress? Yesterday, I think. On Fox this morning. We are falling behind. We can't read their encrypted correspondence. What?? How much clearer does it have to be before we realize what we're doing isn't working?

You do understand that ISIS is also in favor of Religious tests? Do you think we should act like them and give up our Constitution in the process? You also should know that ISIS wants Muslims to believe that they can't live in peace among "non-believers"? Do you agree with them on that too? We cannot defeat ISIS by adopting their rhetoric.

gdgyva · Dec 10, 2015

Iguanaman

Do you think you can reason with ISIS?

Do you believe you can actually have a dialogue with them?

Do you think you have a chance of changing the hearts and minds of radicalized muslims?

reason10 · Dec 10, 2015

joG said:
Carter was a brilliant person and totally out of his depths in that job.

Carter wasn't even as smart as Hillary. He was a Georgia rube. And he almost bankrupt the country, kind of like another ****ing idiot is doing today. The KENYAN SHOESHINE BOY.

reason10 · Dec 10, 2015

Paperview said:
Three words: No religious test.

One word:

SPIN.

Cardinal · Dec 10, 2015

Okay, so Iranians = all Muslims = all radical Muslims.

Wow.

gdgyva · Dec 10, 2015

iguanaman said:
You do understand that ISIS is also in favor of Religious tests? Do you think we should act like them and give up our Constitution in the process? You also should know that ISIS wants Muslims to believe that they can't live in peace among "non-believers"? Do you agree with them on that too? We cannot defeat ISIS by adopting their rhetoric.

sorry...didnt put the questions in an actual response to you

Do you think you can reason with ISIS?

Do you believe you can actually have a dialogue with them?

Do you think you have a chance of changing the hearts and minds of radicalized muslims?

roguenuke · Dec 10, 2015

reason10 said:
Carter wasn't even as smart as Hillary. He was a Georgia rube. And he almost bankrupt the country, kind of like another ****ing idiot is doing today. The KENYAN SHOESHINE BOY.

Carter was very smart, but had little common sense. Being smart doesn't mean you have good overall intelligence.

roguenuke · Dec 10, 2015

reason10 said:

Do you even realize that most were not even old enough to remember Carter as President? I was born right before Carter was voted out of office. We won't even get into the fact that there likely were plenty of people who did racist or a xenophobe (or at least some equivalent term) or bigoted, but that wouldn't be nearly as widely known since the internet has changed how we communicate with each other, our ability to communicate.

Zyphlin · Dec 10, 2015

First Maggie, I'm sorry but you don't speak for "the right" nor does all of "the right" agree with Donald Trump.

Second, it's hilarious watching you and others basically parroting the lefts talking points as it comes to Gun Control. I especially enjoy the "Common sense" [blah blah blah], where "common sense" really just means "What I think should happen". Disallowing ALL muslims from entering this country in any fashion is no more "common sense" than barring people who have not been convicted of a single thing and are not even under an active investigation from their 2nd amendment rights. It's funny how people on both sides of the aisle seem to enjoy employing the same means of propaganda to push their initiatives.

Third, yes...you have people reacting in a hyperbolic and idiotic fashion to some on the right. Then again, you have on the right speaking in a hyperbolic and idiotic fashion. This is precisely my point. When you speak in unrealistic, hyperbolic, extreme ways then it doesn't actually facilitate any kind of "needed dialog", but rather simply serves to polarize the issue into two extremes. I'm sorry, but cries of "They're acting irrationally" in a response to peoples response to someone else acting irrationally is somewhat hollow.

Fourth...we are at war with "terrorists" at best, specific entities at most. We are not at war with "Islam" or "Muslims". If you feel like we should be, then get such a measure passed through congress as is necessary for the United States to declare war. I do no think it's unreasonable to suggest we are at war with radical Islam, but one cannot equate being at war with a political entity such as a foreign State to being at war with an ideology. Those do not work as exact analogs.

Fifth...stop with this ridiculous notion that somehow if you don't agree with Trumps lunacy than it means someone is suggesting "we cannot protect ourselves". Suggesting that Trumps asinine measure of dealing with an injured limb using a fireman's ax instead of a doctor's scalpel is not suggesting we cannot do anything. As I indicated, there is a legitimate issue here and there are reforms and measures that should be looked into. However, suggesting a wholesale refusal of entry of anyone based on their religion is an idiotic method of dealing with it and far from "Common Sense" if someone's desire is actually to "keep us safe" and deal with those who "want to harm us". That action only makes sense if one's desire is to "keep out muslims".

Trump resonates with people for the same reason Honey Boo Boo lasted for four ****ing seasons, and likely with many of the same people.

Zyphlin · Dec 10, 2015

gdgyva said:
Do you think you can reason with ISIS?

No

Do you believe you can actually have a dialogue with them?

No

Do you think you have a chance of changing the hearts and minds of radicalized muslims?

For the most part, no. However, I do think there's a chance of changing the hearts and minds of those with the potential to be radicalized but are not yet.

Zyphlin · Dec 10, 2015

"Don't do it because it's what ISIS wants" is a rather hollow argument on the surface. Why? Because Isis is not some ****ty B movie villain with some intricate plan steering us in a single direction.

They're a disturbingly intelligently ran organization that is putting just as much, if not more, effort in winning this "war" as we are in stopping them.

What ISIS is attempting to work towards, as most smart strategists would do, is a situation that presents for themselves a "win / win" scenario.

If they successfully cause a backlash towards Muslims in general and to those fleeing their oppression in Syria, it provides a benefit for themselves. It helps to potentially radicalize Muslims abroad by causing the public to treat them all as if they're guilty of these things already. It also helps to make it harder for those under ISIS control to be able to escape via refugee efforts, thus reducing the populations hope of truly combatting ISIS and simply giving in.

If instead we react radically the other way, basically trying to completely and utterly dismiss any connection between ISIS and Islam, and being overly sensitive to a fault towards Muslims, then it provides a fertile ground for ISIS to continue their attempts to infiltrate and establish themselves within the west.

If we act aggressively in a militaristic manner, then it brings about a conflict that they're actively desiring due to their religious beliefs of the final battles before Armageddon occurring.

And regardless of what angle we go, they're going to find ways to turn it into propaganda. React extremely harshly towards all Muslims because of ISIS, and they can paint us as the vile Christian dogs oppressing those of muslim faith. React in an extremely appeasing in fashion towards Islam and Muslims for fear of "offending" some at the mere notion of connecting ISIS to Islam, and you present them the opportunity to depict the weak and defanged west. React in a militaristic fashion and you give them the ability to call to arms to join the holy war on the front lines.

ISIS is not dumb, they are not attempting to put themselves in win/lose situations. Do they want some of the reactions, such as Donald Trump? Sure they do. But that's one of multiple actions they want. They want the reactions of those like the President, desperately attempting to separate this from Islam and acting as if there's no connection between the two, in a similar fashion to how they want Trump. They're setting up win/win scenarios in this, which is why an argument "but it's what ISIS wants" is a hollow one.

The better question is what's the better option for America, regardless of whether you think it's what "ISIS wants" or not. They've established chances for "Win/Wins" on their side; there's not likely an action we can take that in the short term can't be spun into some kind of "Win" for them. So I'm more concerned with giving the US a "win" in some fashion, as opposed to actively hoping to deny them of one when such is likely not very feasible at the moment.

MaggieD · Dec 10, 2015

Zyphlin said:
"Don't do it because it's what ISIS wants" is a rather hollow argument on the surface. Why? Because Isis is not some ****ty B movie villain with some intricate plan steering us in a single direction.

They're a disturbingly intelligently ran organization that is putting just as much, if not more, effort in winning this "war" as we are in stopping them.

What ISIS is attempting to work towards, as most smart strategists would do, is a situation that presents for themselves a "win / win" scenario.

If they successfully cause a backlash towards Muslims in general and to those fleeing their oppression in Syria, it provides a benefit for themselves. It helps to potentially radicalize Muslims abroad by causing the public to treat them all as if they're guilty of these things already. It also helps to make it harder for those under ISIS control to be able to escape via refugee efforts, thus reducing the populations hope of truly combatting ISIS and simply giving in.

If instead we react radically the other way, basically trying to completely and utterly dismiss any connection between ISIS and Islam, and being overly sensitive to a fault towards Muslims, then it provides a fertile ground for ISIS to continue their attempts to infiltrate and establish themselves within the west.

If we act aggressively in a militaristic manner, then it brings about a conflict that they're actively desiring due to their religious beliefs of the final battles before Armageddon occurring.

And regardless of what angle we go, they're going to find ways to turn it into propaganda. React extremely harshly towards all Muslims because of ISIS, and they can paint us as the vile Christian dogs oppressing those of muslim faith. React in an extremely appeasing in fashion towards Islam and Muslims for fear of "offending" some at the mere notion of connecting ISIS to Islam, and you present them the opportunity to depict the weak and defanged west. React in a militaristic fashion and you give them the ability to call to arms to join the holy war on the front lines.

ISIS is not dumb, they are not attempting to put themselves in win/lose situations. Do they want some of the reactions, such as Donald Trump? Sure they do. But that's one of multiple actions they want. They want the reactions of those like the President, desperately attempting to separate this from Islam and acting as if there's no connection between the two, in a similar fashion to how they want Trump. They're setting up win/win scenarios in this, which is why an argument "but it's what ISIS wants" is a hollow one.

The better question is what's the better option for America, regardless of whether you think it's what "ISIS wants" or not. They've established chances for "Win/Wins" on their side; there's not likely an action we can take that in the short term can't be spun into some kind of "Win" for them. So I'm more concerned with giving the US a "win" in some fashion, as opposed to actively hoping to deny them of one when such is likely not very feasible at the moment.

Such a thoughtful post.

It seems to me that we could react still another way . . . And that would be to embrace Muslims in this country and, by making our ultimate goal crystal clear, enlist their support, if not their cooperation. Religious freedom is part of our DNA in this country. We believe in it and defend it righteously. By helping them understand that and believe it (because it's true), perhaps that would give us license to vigorously oppose radical Islam in every way that worked WITHOUT alienating the 99% of Muslims that are no threat at all.

iguanaman · Dec 10, 2015

gdgyva said:
sorry...didnt put the questions in an actual response to you

Do you think you can reason with ISIS?

Do you believe you can actually have a dialogue with them?

Do you think you have a chance of changing the hearts and minds of radicalized muslims?

What does that have to do with demonizing all Muslims and making the ISIS propaganda come true? Do you think we can live in peace with Muslims? ISIS is telling their followers that we wish to destroy all Muslims therefore they must all join them in a world war, Is that what you want too?

gdgyva · Dec 10, 2015

iguanaman said:
What does that have to do with demonizing all Muslims and making the ISIS propaganda come true? Do you think we can live in peace with Muslims?

so the answer to all of those is NO

so there is no ISIS rhetoric....because there is no ISIS talks

because there can be none.....

they kill us, or we kill them....pretty simple

so, keeping them out of the US seems a fairly prudent step one in the process

iguanaman · Dec 10, 2015

Zyphlin said:
"Don't do it because it's what ISIS wants" is a rather hollow argument on the surface. Why? Because Isis is not some ****ty B movie villain with some intricate plan steering us in a single direction.

They're a disturbingly intelligently ran organization that is putting just as much, if not more, effort in winning this "war" as we are in stopping them.

What ISIS is attempting to work towards, as most smart strategists would do, is a situation that presents for themselves a "win / win" scenario.

If they successfully cause a backlash towards Muslims in general and to those fleeing their oppression in Syria, it provides a benefit for themselves. It helps to potentially radicalize Muslims abroad by causing the public to treat them all as if they're guilty of these things already. It also helps to make it harder for those under ISIS control to be able to escape via refugee efforts, thus reducing the populations hope of truly combatting ISIS and simply giving in.

If instead we react radically the other way, basically trying to completely and utterly dismiss any connection between ISIS and Islam, and being overly sensitive to a fault towards Muslims, then it provides a fertile ground for ISIS to continue their attempts to infiltrate and establish themselves within the west.

If we act aggressively in a militaristic manner, then it brings about a conflict that they're actively desiring due to their religious beliefs of the final battles before Armageddon occurring.

And regardless of what angle we go, they're going to find ways to turn it into propaganda. React extremely harshly towards all Muslims because of ISIS, and they can paint us as the vile Christian dogs oppressing those of muslim faith. React in an extremely appeasing in fashion towards Islam and Muslims for fear of "offending" some at the mere notion of connecting ISIS to Islam, and you present them the opportunity to depict the weak and defanged west. React in a militaristic fashion and you give them the ability to call to arms to join the holy war on the front lines.

ISIS is not dumb, they are not attempting to put themselves in win/lose situations. Do they want some of the reactions, such as Donald Trump? Sure they do. But that's one of multiple actions they want. They want the reactions of those like the President, desperately attempting to separate this from Islam and acting as if there's no connection between the two, in a similar fashion to how they want Trump. They're setting up win/win scenarios in this, which is why an argument "but it's what ISIS wants" is a hollow one.

The better question is what's the better option for America, regardless of whether you think it's what "ISIS wants" or not. They've established chances for "Win/Wins" on their side; there's not likely an action we can take that in the short term can't be spun into some kind of "Win" for them. So I'm more concerned with giving the US a "win" in some fashion, as opposed to actively hoping to deny them of one when such is likely not very feasible at the moment.

I lost you when you said ISIS wants us to separate them from non-radical Muslims. Why would that be to their advantage? That is what they DON'T want because it means they will not get their world war with non-believers. Muslims will be on the front lines against them or we will never be done with them. Them meaning radicalized Muslims not just ISIS.

Hey Liberals.

reason10

David_N

MrT

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

joG

MaggieD

Paperview

MaggieD

Zyphlin

MaggieD

iguanaman

gdgyva

reason10

reason10

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

gdgyva

roguenuke

roguenuke

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

MaggieD

iguanaman

gdgyva

iguanaman