Red Mosquito

Does this fucking ass clown understand that muslims are treated horribly in these countries??? As bad as christians but in more numbers?

Kevin Davis wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:To me, whether the list gets the countries right or not in terms of where terrorists are coming from is irrelevant. This action keeps people out of this country who have every right to be here.

At the risk of shouting into the ether: nobody has the right (US citizens aside) to enter the USA. Entry is a privilege, extended with discrimination by the US government.
On why some countries, eg. Pakistan, were not on the current list, I saw a suggestion that the seven countries selected are those where our intelligence links are low, making vetting more difficult. Our intelligence links with Pakistan (for example) are more developed and the risk assessment process more straight-forward.

.

No argument there, Spence. I guess the folks arguing against this just prefer to think of our nation as one who thinks beyond simply that to which people are "technically entitled," that there is virtue -- not only moral vitrue, but virtue as a nation, as a leading world power -- in being compassionate beyond the bare minimum.

Spenno's comment also comes from an assumption that anybody can just walk in willy nilly. There are immigration practices in place (especially for middle eastern countries and refugees from said places) that have been working, as the data shows.

Strat wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Hey Spenno,

I appreciate your arguments and thoughts, even if I disagree with the majority of them (but not all of them). They'll help keep the liberal snowflakes on their toes. Keep 'em coming.

They are just tasting the same anger and frustration that the red team had back in 2009.

I have no issue with stopping immigration from suspected terror sponsors that are not crucial for our economy for 90 days while a better vetting system is put in place. (Blocking green card holders is absurd though.)

No we are angry about his facist policies and absolute fear mongering and inability to grasp facts and creating their own reality.

They just hated a black president. *

*moslty true and somewhat said in jest

If you are ever interested in understanding the red team, I highly recommend this. It changed my view of their world

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Hey Spenno,

I appreciate your arguments and thoughts, even if I disagree with the majority of them (but not all of them). They'll help keep the liberal snowflakes on their toes. Keep 'em coming.

They are just tasting the same anger and frustration that the red team had back in 2009.

I have no issue with stopping immigration from suspected terror sponsors that are not crucial for our economy for 90 days while a better vetting system is put in place. (Blocking green card holders is absurd though.)

No we are angry about his facist policies and absolute fear mongering and inability to grasp facts and creating their own reality.

They just hated a black president. *

*moslty true and somewhat said in jest

If you are ever interested in understanding the red team, I highly recommend this. It changed my view of their world

Too soon.

Bi_3 wrote:

Strat wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Hey Spenno,

I appreciate your arguments and thoughts, even if I disagree with the majority of them (but not all of them). They'll help keep the liberal snowflakes on their toes. Keep 'em coming.

They are just tasting the same anger and frustration that the red team had back in 2009.

I have no issue with stopping immigration from suspected terror sponsors that are not crucial for our economy for 90 days while a better vetting system is put in place. (Blocking green card holders is absurd though.)

No we are angry about his facist policies and absolute fear mongering and inability to grasp facts and creating their own reality.

They just hated a black president. *

*moslty true and somewhat said in jest

If you are ever interested in understanding the red team, I highly recommend this. It changed my view of their world

I was being jovial. Im reading "Dear hunting with Jesus" right now. I am interested.

Bi_3 wrote:
If you are ever interested in understanding the red team, I highly recommend this. It changed my view of their world

Great book.

Kevin Davis wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:To me, whether the list gets the countries right or not in terms of where terrorists are coming from is irrelevant. This action keeps people out of this country who have every right to be here.

At the risk of shouting into the ether: nobody has the right (US citizens aside) to enter the USA. Entry is a privilege, extended with discrimination by the US government.
On why some countries, eg. Pakistan, were not on the current list, I saw a suggestion that the seven countries selected are those where our intelligence links are low, making vetting more difficult. Our intelligence links with Pakistan (for example) are more developed and the risk assessment process more straight-forward.

.

No argument there, Spence. I guess the folks arguing against this just prefer to think of our nation as one who thinks beyond simply that to which people are "technically entitled," that there is virtue -- not only moral vitrue, but virtue as a nation, as a leading world power -- in being compassionate beyond the bare minimum.

I completely agree and I don't think that's in any respect in conflict with what I said above.

It's breaking that a NY judge just granted some kind of national stay on this ban. Not sure exactly what that means yet.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:It's breaking that a NY judge just granted some kind of national stay on this ban. Not sure exactly what that means yet.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... eral-court

Sounds reasonable.

It blows my mind how there is some acceptance of this having anything to do with keeping us safe from violent muslims. Let's see the history here...we obliterated Iraq, demolished the army, the infrastructure, the entire power structure thus creating a perfect situation for ISIS to develop. So, first off, we should feel pretty shitty for that, and you would think we would try to save those innocents being beheaded by the organization that would have never arose if not for our stupidity and greed. But no, we are going to imprison them there...but still love us, OK? Or else we will hunt you down!

Now, it is not cheap or easy to be ISIS. Who is training ISIS? Who is giving them BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in support? Do you think it is easy to just create this coordinated of a group, take an uneducated soul off the street and he can pick up a anti-aircraft missile and be on his way? Saudi Arabia is the #1 funder, by such a stretch it isn't even close, of not only ISIS but Islamic terror in general. You want to get rid of ISIS? You cut off their funding source. SAUDI ARABIA. You want to rid the world of wahhabism (i.e. islamic extremism)? You cut off the funding source. SAUDI ARABIA. The fact that we not only don't do this, but actually sell them weapons so they can bomb schools in Yemen should open your eyes that something horrifically evil, that has nothing to do with "protecting the homeland", is going on here.

There is something else that no one else has picked up on...what the hell is Iran doing on this list? There is no ISIS in Iran, they are actually fighting ISIS like hell in Syria, and Iran has nothing to do with anything resembling ISIS.

Now, if you are like Birds in Hell and think being Muslim means you are fundamentally incompatible with peace and stability, then by all means move along.

track11 wrote:Now, if you are like Birds in Hell and think being Muslim means you are fundamentally incompatible with peace and stability, then by all means move along.

*sigh*

Spenno, I appreciate hearing your perspective, even if I don't agree with you here. I know you are not a racist. I love you.

Birds in Hell wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

On this:

That said:

I assumed by your post that you support that tweet, that it is reasonable to exclude all billion Muslims from entrance to the United States because they are Muslim, because they "adhere to a religion that is in conflict all over the globe."

Birds in Hell wrote:

track11 wrote:Now, if you are like Birds in Hell and think being Muslim means you are fundamentally incompatible with peace and stability, then by all means move along.

*sigh*

ive never once heard Spenno say such a thing.

I think spenno is very very very very very wrong on this but i haven't seen him type such a thing.

The only way I can figure out why someone would support a ban on ALL muslims is if they fundamentally viewed the religion as beholden to trouble. I cannot make logical sense of any other argument for a religion of over a billion people. Understand, of course, that I am not saying Trump is doing this, he is not, I am saying that Birds in Hell is supportive of that idea, which is why he posted that tweet, apparently in agreement. We've got people here obliterating Trump for banning 7 countries but drooling over a poster here who thinks that isn't enough. I don't get it.

track11 wrote:The only way I can figure out why someone would support a ban on ALL muslims is if they fundamentally viewed the religion as beholden to trouble. I cannot make logical sense of any other argument for a religion of over a billion people. Understand, of course, that I am not saying Trump is doing this, he is not, I am saying that Birds in Hell is supportive of that idea, which is why he posted that tweet, apparently in agreement. We've got people here obliterating Trump for banning 7 countries but drooling over a poster here who thinks that isn't enough. I don't get it.

Have you read every post? Everybody here is attacking Spenno/birds

Strat wrote:

track11 wrote:The only way I can figure out why someone would support a ban on ALL muslims is if they fundamentally viewed the religion as beholden to trouble. I cannot make logical sense of any other argument for a religion of over a billion people. Understand, of course, that I am not saying Trump is doing this, he is not, I am saying that Birds in Hell is supportive of that idea, which is why he posted that tweet, apparently in agreement. We've got people here obliterating Trump for banning 7 countries but drooling over a poster here who thinks that isn't enough. I don't get it.

Have you read every post? Everybody here is attacking Spenno/birds

Not aggressively enough, and I'm getting called out for calling a spade a spade. Everyone attacking BiH is super comfortable calling Trump a horrible racist but absolutely assured that BiH is not. No way, no sir!

It is very simple: BiH supports a ban on ALL muslims from entering the US. How is this not racist?

Or maybe I'm mistaken, and he would like to take back his support from that tweet. I'm happy to accept that, but until he does so, you folks are a bit strange in your allegiances.

I'm not prepared to explain myself to you, I've learnt from previous discussions that it achieves nothing.

<------------------------------->