U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-21-2018, 12:52 PM
 
39,075 posts, read 23,170,087 times
Reputation: 12157

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyp25 View Post
The Vatican rules within the walls of the Vatican. Thats it. It does not run The Italian government.
Are you under the impression that the Italian government rules over the Vatican?

 
Old 09-21-2018, 12:54 PM
 
11,999 posts, read 3,306,207 times
Reputation: 3627
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
In your fearful imagination.
It's not imagination. It's fact and supported by polling of muslims.

Here's the bottom line. The constitution does not intend nor does it require any immigration of muslims or any immigration at all.
 
Old 09-21-2018, 12:55 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
5,122 posts, read 2,928,500 times
Reputation: 9453
If he is Muslim it makes sense, don't you think?
 
Old 09-21-2018, 12:56 PM
Status: "Praise Be" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Trumpville
7,258 posts, read 3,288,416 times
Reputation: 6305
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Yeah islam took the worst and obsolete parts of the bible, demoted Jesus to a prophet and promoted a horrible person Muhammed as the head profit.

To call it a valid, bona fide religion would be like calling Hitlerism and Nazism a valid political belief.
And Christianity is to Judaism what Mormonism is to Christianity.

It's all fiction and has no place in our laws.
 
Old 09-21-2018, 01:04 PM
 
39,075 posts, read 23,170,087 times
Reputation: 12157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Two "muslim names" doesn't make them muslims. They're just a couple of mercenaries at most. And it certainly doesn't make them British subjects, or of any relevance.
You do realize you are spinning madly.

What the heck are you talking about, "doesn't make them British subjects"?

They are relevant because your argument is that the founders didn't want to extend religious liberty to Muslims. Despite the FACT that we have quotes from them that shows they did in fact want to extend religious liberty, to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Deists. The founders included Muslims. The founders weren't as ignorant as you are claiming. There were Muslims in this country, and the founders were well aware of Islam. Their INTENTION was to extend religious liberty to the people living in this country.
 
Old 09-21-2018, 01:06 PM
 
11,999 posts, read 3,306,207 times
Reputation: 3627
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
And Christianity is to Judaism what Mormonism is to Christianity.

It's all fiction and has no place in our laws.
It's not all fiction with no place in our lives. You disagree with not killing, not stealing, not lying, treating others as you'd want to be treated etc?
 
Old 09-21-2018, 01:09 PM
 
11,999 posts, read 3,306,207 times
Reputation: 3627
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
You do realize you are spinning madly.

What the heck are you talking about, "doesn't make them British subjects"?

They are relevant because your argument is that the founders didn't want to extend religious liberty to Muslims. Despite the FACT that we have quotes from them that shows they did in fact want to extend religious liberty, to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Deists. The founders included Muslims. The founders weren't as ignorant as you are claiming. There were Muslims in this country, and the founders were well aware of Islam. Their INTENTION was to extend religious liberty to the people living in this country.
It was just a philosophy of liberty applicable to Americans. It extended nothing to foreigners and their foreign religion. Liberty at the time only extended to free white persons.
 
Old 09-21-2018, 01:09 PM
 
39,075 posts, read 23,170,087 times
Reputation: 12157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
It's not imagination. It's fact and supported by polling of muslims.

Here's the bottom line. The constitution does not intend nor does it require any immigration of muslims or any immigration at all.
No, it's imagination. And fear. Lots of fear.

The Constitution does require that the federal government to treat people equally, without regard to their religion or lack thereof. The Constitution requires that the government will not discriminate. Your argument that they should discriminate is duly noted. That darn Bill of Rights!
 
Old 09-21-2018, 01:11 PM
Status: "Still unbothered. ;)" (set 29 days ago)
 
3,002 posts, read 1,584,661 times
Reputation: 4219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyp25 View Post
Its pretty simple. Muhammad was not dumb. He stole the content of the bible, and placed himself inside the "koran".

Although I don't agree about the stolen content part, I do agree that the Arabs inserted themselves into a story that wasn't theirs.
 
Old 09-21-2018, 01:11 PM
 
5,234 posts, read 1,565,474 times
Reputation: 5026
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchampagne232000 View Post
What is that quote? Do not argue with stupid people for they will beat you with experience? Yeah- feels like it applies right now.

Your argument is that the SCOTUS has interpreted the constitution incorrectly. In defense of your position you've questioned how many times plenary powers may have been addressed meaning that the SCOTUS must not have really put serious thought into it....at least not as much thought as phantompilot City Data poster has. Because they must not have put that much thought into their position I am required to cite specific case opinions to refute city data poster.


I'll tag out here with the thought that this exchange just does nothing but reaffirm all of my preconceived notions about the overall stupidity of the average GOP voter. To prove to me you aren't stupid please look up cases in which immigration plenary powers precedent was set and show to me the flaw in logic that makes the SCOTUS' rulings erroneous. Thanks.
I asked you to show us where the Federal govt gets the authority over immigration, in the Constitution. Which you couldn't do and instead cited Wikipedia.

If this is how you approach everything in life, I'm sure a lot of people think you're daft.

Does anyone else want to accept the challenge and show us all where in the Constitution the Federal Government would find such an authority?

$1000 to a non-profit of my choice to the first person that can do this.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top