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.
Yes, a country that supposedly is built on the foundation of freedom, including the freedom of religion, should, obviously, regulate immigration based on immigrant's religious beliefs. The ultimate hypocrisy.
Moderator cut: NO name calling!this country since its inception until 1965 BANNED practically ALL ASIANS and Eastern Europeans from entering this country, we even had the Chinese exclusion act in the 1800's.
Prior to 1965 the immigration law was based on "country of origin". A country could only have up to 2% of the total number of people living in this country to immigrate here. So if a country had no one living here, then no one could come here. After 1965, we gave out 180k visas a year to anyone in the Eastern Hemisphere on a first come first serve basis. And we starting giving out unlimited numbers of family reunification visas.
We went from having less than 100k muslims in this country in 1970 to a projected 7-9 million muslims today.
You tell me, do you think we are better off?
Last edited by katzenfreund; 11-10-2009 at 11:47 AM..
You are just plain out dishonest. So according to you, they did the right thing by putting Hasan on the back burner and let people get killed. You have no where to go with this argument, you should just concede now and save whatever humility you have left.
They didn't ignore Hasan, nor did they put a serious threat on the back-burner. They failed to read his mind and figure out that the guy was seriously unbalanced. Because sometimes we can't read people's minds and know how sick they are inside.
And please, stop with the "honesty" attacks. I've respected you enough to engage you in an honest discussion, and your attempts to marginalize my arguments are petty and petulant. If you can't argue the points, then end the discussion, but trying to degrade people on an anonymous forum is simply pointless.
Ahh, actually it does go along with the rule of law provided the "terrorists" are not on american soil. Did you forget that we have two wars going on to do this exact thing?
Government, of the people, by the people, for the people, involved the Gettysburg Address, not the Constitution..
Hmmmm... I never said government of the people, by the people, for the people was in the Constitution. So we can dismiss that point.
And you have not provided us with any reasons why Hasan should have been treated as a terrorist prior to the day when a 17-year veteran of the Army, an officer and a doctor, decided to take weapons onto a military base and open fire on unarmed soldiers. Was he a terrorist the day before he did this? If you answer yes, please explain how he qualified as a terrorist at any point prior to his irrational and violent act.
They didn't ignore Hasan, nor did they put a serious threat on the back-burner. They failed to read his mind and figure out that the guy was seriously unbalanced. Because sometimes we can't read people's minds and know how sick they are inside.
And please, stop with the "honesty" attacks. I've respected you enough to engage you in an honest discussion, and your attempts to marginalize my arguments are petty and petulant. If you can't argue the points, then end the discussion, but trying to degrade people on an anonymous forum is simply pointless.
You are the one not arguing the points or facts. The fact is that this guy WAS A JIHADIST! He wasn't sick as you put it, he is a TERRORIST! That is the facts and the point of this whole thing. Actually the real point is how PC got us into this and you are proving the point with every post you make. You are inherently being dishonest and you know it. It is how you libs spin things, it is well known and documented.
Hmmmm... I never said government of the people, by the people, for the people was in the Constitution. So we can dismiss that point.
And you have not provided us with any reasons why Hasan should have been treated as a terrorist prior to the day when a 17-year veteran of the Army, an officer and a doctor, decided to take weapons onto a military base and open fire on unarmed soldiers. Was he a terrorist the day before he did this? If you answer yes, please explain how he qualified as a terrorist at any point prior to his irrational and violent act.
ok....before your question gets answered, answer this...What made the Holocaust Museum shooter a RWE before he killed the security guard?
Whoah! Did the European Jews fly planes into some German skyscrapers? Did they blow up buildings across Europe because their countrymen refused to keep kosher? Did the rape all the women who walked around not wearing wigs? Boy, those conservative teachers in my day sure were covering up the real history, because we never got taught any of that . . . Yes, Muslims are just as innocent and victimized and helpless as Jews ever were!
Blech. You know, the Muslims never shrink from stealing other people's histories or status. It began with the Bible, when they claimed that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac. It continues to this day, when they claim to be "brutalized" though anyone with a brain knows who the real perps are in the Middle East. Really pretty pathetic, and guess what, ergohead, you don't HAVE TO believe the lies.
You, chatty, are talking to yourself.
And, two perps, or three, working "independently" of each other, CAN create a common victim.
Did the Religio-Lamists want Secular Saddam Husein removed from power?
Did Israel want a U.S. military presence in the Middle East?
Did Di*k cheney want to destroy evidence contained in the WTC?
Does a bear shyt in the buckwheat?
We made happy with the Saudis, and we made happy with the Israelis - What could be finer?
Hmmmm... I never said government of the people, by the people, for the people was in the Constitution. So we can dismiss that point.
No, what you said was that we are nation of laws, and as evidence of that, you sighted the Gettysburg address. You were wrong, and just admit it rather than trying to spin this into another lie to explain an error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And you have not provided us with any reasons why Hasan should have been treated as a terrorist prior to the day when a 17-year veteran of the Army, an officer and a doctor, decided to take weapons onto a military base and open fire on unarmed soldiers. Was he a terrorist the day before he did this? If you answer yes, please explain how he qualified as a terrorist at any point prior to his irrational and violent act.
I never claimed he should have been treated as a terrorist, I said he should be treated like a law breaker which he was.
And Clinton was warned about 911 as well.. How far do you want to take this game?
Clinton was lucky. No one attacked the US under his watch. If it was OK for Bush to totally ignore the warnings about the impending 9/11 attack, why is the situation with Obama different?
He didn't contact Al-Qaeda. He contacted an individual who has ties to Al-Qadeda (according to the link). I agree the guy was suspicious. He was in the army a long time, well before Obama was pres. He apparently was never investigated, or if he was, nothing concrete was found.
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.
