False liberal dogma

[Termn8or]

You were bitching about your question not getting answered, so I thought I'd answer it. After going to all the work to answer your question I think I have a right to question it's relevance.

I take your reply to mean ... NONE!

Are you liberal?

My apologies, and congrats.

So how does that tiny percentage translate into a "Muslim ban?"

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And yes, you're be deeply troubled by factual material and common sense expressed at Heritage and Breitbart.

Bwahahahaha!! :2rofll:

Heritage and Breitbart are as factual as Daily Kos and AlterNet.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Are you liberal?

My apologies, and congrats.

So how does that tiny percentage translate into a "Muslim ban?"

It was focused on countries that average 80% Muslim or more.

 

[Termn8or]

Are you liberal?

My apologies, and congrats.

So how does that tiny percentage translate into a "Muslim ban?"

It was focused on countries that average 80% Muslim or more.

That's irrelevant.

It was focused on countries that had a terrible problem with islamic terror; that could not verify their own citizens' identities.

And given that the overwhelming percentage of Muslims in the world weren't affected, it was not a "Muslim ban."

That's just ridiculous.

 

[mike2810]

That Trump mi-stated reality has nothing to do with the facts.

And still not one single liberal has answered the question.

Stunning, but utterly predictable.

See Post 33
How can one answer your OP question when the question asked is not supported by the OP article you linked.

"I want to help out the Liberals. I am a long time Republican who is now an Independent. I looked at your linked article. Before the calculations can be done you need to define what 7 countries. Based on the article there is only 5 not 7 majority Muslim nations on the travel ban. But North Korea and Venezuela are on the list but are not majority Muslim. Then we have the 3 Muslim counties that were dropped.

Then one must ask do you include Muslims who have no intention to ever travel to the US in the numbers?

" The latest iteration of the ban includes restrictions against five majority-Muslim nations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. North Korea and Venezuela are also on the list. Three other majority-Muslim nations, including Chad, Iraq and Sudan have been removed since policy was implemented through executive order in January 2017.

You do have a pattern of ignoring those that show you your errors or answering the questions asked..

signed
Long time Republican who is now an Independent.

 

[Termn8or]

See Post 33
How can one answer your OP question when the question asked is not supported by the OP article you linked.

I was referring to liberals years of claims about it.

They have made a blatantly false claim they cannot back up with facts.

I grabbed what I thought was an accurate article, don't even remember where.

 

[Irwin Corey]

That's irrelevant.

It was focused on countries that had a terrible problem with islamic terror; that could not verify their own citizens' identities.

And given that the overwhelming percentage of Muslims in the world weren't affected, it was not a "Muslim ban."

That's just ridiculous.

Yes it is just ridiculous; your post that is. You just said "it was focused on countries that had a terrible problem with islamic terror". I was focused on Muslims; Islam == Muslim.

 

[mike2810]

I was referring to liberals years of claims about it.

They have made a blatantly false claim they cannot back up with facts.

I grabbed what I thought was an accurate article, don't even remember where.

Funny. You don't even know what you posted in your OP.
"Cite the number of Muslims from countries totally unaffected.
Then calculate what percentage of Muslims in the world were totally unaffected by the fake "Muslim ban."

The article you linked does not support the parameters you stated in the OP. See my reply in post 33.

imo, You are giving Conservatives a bad name with your nonsense posts. (PS" I answered your question on the percent. Then I asked for you to prove me wrong. You have failed to do so.)

 

[d0gbreath]

Liberal's inability to deal with reality affects every day's issues.

But you didn't answer the question.

I doubt any liberal will.

You didn't even ask a question. If you had, the answer would've been no.

 

[Termn8or]

That's irrelevant.

It was focused on countries that had a terrible problem with islamic terror; that could not verify their own citizens' identities.

And given that the overwhelming percentage of Muslims in the world weren't affected, it was not a "Muslim ban."

That's just ridiculous.

Yes it is just ridiculous; your post that is. You just said "it was focused on countries that had a terrible problem with islamic terror". I was focused on Muslims; Islam == Muslim.

Oh my gosh, the claim liberals have made is that there was a "Muslim ban."

What percentage of Muslims in the world were free to enter the US?

Those are the ones who weren't banned by the, sheesh, "Muslim ban."

 

[Termn8or]

Funny. You don't even know what you posted in your OP.
"Cite the number of Muslims from countries totally unaffected.
Then calculate what percentage of Muslims in the world were totally unaffected by the fake "Muslim ban."

The article you linked does not support the parameters you stated in the OP. See my reply in post 33.

imo, You are giving Conservatives a bad name with your nonsense posts. (PS" I answered your question on the percent. Then I asked for you to prove me wrong. You have failed to do so.)

As I have specifically asked several times, spend a little time using google and work the numbers.

How difficult is that?

And overwhelmingly, the responses from liberals don't even try to answer.

 

[vegas giants]

Oh my gosh, the claim liberals have made is that there was a "Muslim ban."

What percentage of Muslims in the world were free to enter the US?

Those are the ones who weren't banned by the, sheesh, "Muslim ban."

There was a muslim ban.

 

[mike2810]

As I have specifically asked several times, spend a little time using google and work the numbers.

How difficult is that?

And overwhelmingly, the responses from liberals don't even try to answer.

If I was a liberal I would not give you a answer because question is just stupid. We all know that the travel ban stopped travel for only certain countries. Not the entire Muslim world.
Why are some "conservatives" so scared to answer questions of them?

 

[Irwin Corey]

Oh my gosh, the claim liberals have made is that there was a "Muslim ban."

What percentage of Muslims in the world were free to enter the US?

Those are the ones who weren't banned by the, sheesh, "Muslim ban."

They were nations with Large percentage of Muslims. Syria is 98%, if I remember right (one of them was), Muslim. I get your point, but there is also the point that if you lived in one of those countries you might feel persecuted over your religion, when the most common link between them is their large Muslim population; hence the name.

 

[Termn8or]

As I have specifically asked several times, spend a little time using google and work the numbers.

How difficult is that?

And overwhelmingly, the responses from liberals don't even try to answer.

If I was a liberal I would not give you a answer because question is just stupid. We all know that the travel ban stopped travel for only certain countries. Not the entire Muslim world.

Exposing a liberal lie by asking a question is "stupid?"

There was no "Muslim ban" because almost no Muslims in the world were affected at all.

I won't waste my time with you.

 

[vegas giants]

Exposing a liberal lie by asking a question is "stupid?"

There was no "Muslim ban" because almost no Muslims in the world were affected at all.

I won't waste my time with you.

But trump wanted a Muslim ban. He said so

 

[Termn8or]

They were nations with Large percentage of Muslims. Syria is 98%, if I remember right (one of them was), Muslim. I get your point, but there is also the point that if you lived in one of those countries you might feel persecuted over your religion, when the most common link between them is their large Muslim population; hence the name.

That makes sense, but liberals weren't reading minds, nor was the claim about feelings.

Liberals were making a false claim.

 

[Rich2018]

So many claims liberals make are just factually wrong.

It's dogma that few liberals are even willing to research to learn the truth, and ignore the truth when it's put right in front of their eyes by conservatives.

"Trump signed a "Muslim ban," claim liberals.

Okay, let's see a liberal cite the number of Muslims in those seven countries.

Cite the number of Muslims from countries totally unaffected.

Then calculate what percentage of Muslims in the world were totally unaffected by the fake "Muslim ban."

Now watch liberal heads explode.:lol:

And evasions.

Personal attacks.

Zero answers to the question.

And their usual reality-avoiding behavior.

Typical RW fringe straw man


What "liberal" has claimed that Trump has tried to ban all Muslims from the USA ?

 

[mike2810]

Exposing a liberal lie by asking a question is "stupid?"

There was no "Muslim ban" because almost no Muslims in the world were affected at all.

I won't waste my time with you.

back at you.

I will not waste anymore of my time with on this thread. You are just out to bash what you consider "liberal".

 

[Irwin Corey]

That makes sense, but liberals weren't reading minds, nor was the claim about feelings.

Liberals were making a false claim.

Your unreasonable, unrelenting hate of liberals is common knowlege.

 

[Eriech]

Hint. I pulled the number out of thin air.

The OP thread is a "bait" thread imo. Based on the linked article you can't do what he asked. Nor would I spend the time. :mrgreen:

What wrote had nothing to do with your numbers other than the survival rate for Covid19 over 99% like the number you apparently pulled out of your butt. Muslims that can't be vetted should not be able to imigrate here for the same reason we locked down the economy. The propensity toward terrorism is asymptomatic, when coming from failed states or states that support terrorism.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Termn8or]

Your unreasonable, unrelenting hate of liberals is common knowlege.

Books and countless columns have been written about the horrific damage Liberalism has been done.

You're watching parts of cities being burned and looted right in front of your eyes. Horrific damage is being done to the country both physically and to the American spirit.

Which party governed them for many years if not decades?

 

[mike2810]

What wrote had nothing to do with your numbers other than the survival rate for Covid19 over 99% like the number you apparently pulled out of your butt. Muslims that can't be vetted should not be able to imigrate here for the same reason we locked down the economy. The propensity toward terrorism is asymptomatic, when coming from failed states or states that support terrorism.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I did not use the CV19 stats. Like I said I made up the number.

Read the OP and his question before attacking my sarcastic reply.

 

[Termn8or]

 

[Termn8or]

"Far right source!"

"Mediafactcheck rejects that source!"

"You're just a propagandist!"

And all the endless excuses liberals use not to look outside their bubble.

.