Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You judge for yourself what that is and if you are ready to give up your rights and liberties for the illusion of safety:"A US-born NASA scientist was detained at the border until he unlocked his phone" http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/12/14...ump-travel-ban
I have said it before and will again. The majority of muslims are decent people who simply want a better life for themselves and family but it only takes one as we have seen time and again to destroy the lives of many.
Why should we take a chance? What is so bad about putting immigration from dangerous ares of the world that Obama identified for us on hold until we can get a better handle on it?
I can see it now when we have another attack at the hands of an islamic extremist the Left will blame Trump for giving the guys a reason to kill. They will blame the gun and not the man behind the trigger.
I guess in a way we are free and at Liberty to let in potential terrorists and they are just as free to kill us.
Why are the victims always forgotten?
Has the terrible day of September 11th 2001 and the lessons that were learned from that disaster been forgotten?
The world has become a really scary place since Ben Franklin lived and what would he say about the state of America today? I'm sure he would be very concerned that we are letting potential enemies in.
You judge for yourself what that is and if you are ready to give up your rights and liberties for the illusion of safety:"A US-born NASA scientist was detained at the border until he unlocked his phone" http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/12/14...ump-travel-ban
...what is this 'liberty' you speak of?....i'm curious how free you think you are
As for the US born citizen stopped at the border, that certainly applies. That is unacceptable and a clear infringement on his rights. Border security when it comes to those coming in who were not born here, it's somewhat different. They're entitled to privacy upon entry, something I doubt Trump and his clan will respect (though what president has since the Cold War?), but to be subject to security upon entry is not unreasonable, nor unconstitutional. Is it anti-freedom? Maybe, but I don't know how strong of an argument that is. Plus, most of the "pro-freedom" arguments are nonsense. Few really understand what freedom means, and even fewer bother to consider what people like Benjamin Franklin were talking about.
You judge for yourself what that is and if you are ready to give up your rights and liberties for the illusion of safety:"A US-born NASA scientist was detained at the border until he unlocked his phone" http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/12/14...ump-travel-ban
The world has become a really scary place since Ben Franklin lived and what would he say about the state of America today? I'm sure he would be very concerned that we are letting potential enemies in.
Given the founding father's view on democarcy (contrast that with republic), he along with the others would quite likely be concerned that a populist demagogue was just elected. They didn't trust the public with that kind of power, which is an old and well document idea going all the way back to Athens, which is why we have the electoral college (it's not giving small states a voice; that big picture doesn't even matter). And while it's the Democrats who are advocating, rather stupidly in my opinion, for it's abolition, the Republicans elected a populist.
As for immigration, they'd not be too concerned. They'd certainly want security, but have the same expectation for immigrants as anyone else. They'd also consider the US involvement in the Middle East, which is at the very least fueling terrorist sentiment, to be inherently wrong. They'd probably see the NSA abolished, and would likely not be as against property tax as libertarians claim; though they may say only a state can institute it.
(I assume not; most seem to think it stops after 2, and also that these two amendments are the entire constitution when it reality, most of the constitution is just "there shall be a supreme court" type things. Regardless, the 4th protects Americans, which this guy was, from unreasonable searches and seizures. Surely looking into his phone, which is his personal property, is a violation of this? I know it's not saying he's not allowed to say ****** or taking his gun, but it's a rights violation all the same.)
I read the linked story earlier today, and I was appalled. I'm surprised that he actually handed over the phone rather than call JPL and ask for legal assistance. Burner phones for travel, anyone?
(I assume not; most seem to think it stops after 2, and also that these two amendments are the entire constitution when it reality, most of the constitution is just "there shall be a supreme court" type things. Regardless, the 4th protects Americans, which this guy was, from unreasonable searches and seizures. Surely looking into his phone, which is his personal property, is a violation of this? I know it's not saying he's not allowed to say ****** or taking his gun, but it's a rights violation all the same.)
Are you afraid to leave your house on a daily basis?
The paranoia is off the charts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
