Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country" ....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 30/01/17 19:14:12]"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. " Do they have a top 10.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?"..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years. "Absolutely and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years. "I would wonder what the top chants are for EDL or other white supremacist groups are? Admittedly, there are extremist arseholes on every side, born out of hate due to the perceived injustices they feel are happening, due to the misinformation floating around. The root problem is why such disinformation allowed to propagate, how can opinion not be treated like fact and in turn shape policy. Do our freedoms we hold dear require a obligation to wield those rights responsibly, quid pro quo to say. Events unfold, we watch, wondering where it would lead. We try to make sense and attempt to justify the deeper meaning, we scour sources to support our held beliefs. The human mind is a terrible filter, it cannot reliably discern between fact or fiction. Today we are inundated with 24hr news, blogs, posts, political sites telling us everything is broken and we are the solution. Information overload making us question the difference between right and wrong, and it becomes a mishmash, resulting in defending positions partly due to current affiliations where even there are doubts about the direction they are taking. People do indeed like trump, because he offers a solution to the problems he perceives are wrong with United States, from opinions not facts, and is taking decisive action which on the outside is what people of a certain personality type respond to strength of character. Who are willing to abrogate responsibility and lay it into the hands of him and his team. Right or wrong, not your policy not your problem, if it solves a perceived threat then so be it. Democratic governments need to interpret the will of the people, and vast majority of people just want everyone to get along, be secure and ensure they are free to live their lives. unfortunately bad government does rely on sage advice, and the outcome breaks the harmony. Which tribalises people and what for? All to satisfy the views and actions of the select few. So who are the victims? We all are the victims, victims of circumstance, victims of other people agendas and victims by choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask." Google it.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask." More importantly how many Americans have been killed in the US by acts of terror committed by any nationals on Trumps banned list? You don't have to Google it I can tell you. A big fat Zero. But feel free to check for yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask." Never mind the last 17 years; how many muslims have been killed by Christian extremists in Quebec over the last 17 days? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection. "I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. More importantly how many Americans have been killed in the US by acts of terror committed by any nationals on Trumps banned list? You don't have to Google it I can tell you. A big fat Zero. But feel free to check for yourself." Correction this list of 7 countries was a list drawn up by President Obama. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The acting Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department has said she doesn't believe the executive order is constitutional and has instructed lawyers at the Justice Department that they will not defend the executive order in court as long as she is attorney general... Trump's pick for AG hasn't been confirmed by the Senate yet....I wonder whether trump will fire the acting AG or wait for his pick to get through..." I think any AG would have a tough job defending it. It's clearly arbitrary, almost certainly discriminatory and, as such unconstitutional and illegal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. More importantly how many Americans have been killed in the US by acts of terror committed by any nationals on Trumps banned list? You don't have to Google it I can tell you. A big fat Zero. But feel free to check for yourself. Correction this list of 7 countries was a list drawn up by President Obama. " He didn't draw it up with the intention of banning valid visa holders and, in some cases, greencard holders from entering the US. If he did, could you tell me a source? Presenting information in such a way is [deliberately] misleading. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. More importantly how many Americans have been killed in the US by acts of terror committed by any nationals on Trumps banned list? You don't have to Google it I can tell you. A big fat Zero. But feel free to check for yourself." Well, apply that to Europe and the death toll rises and rises. The most recent being the Christmas market attacks. What is it they say? Prevention is better than a cure. lt's only going to happen more and more and the liberal lslamophiles will defend it to the point of a Caliphate forming. At that point, l'll be a on a beach in Netanya sunbathing while you pay the Jizya tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.
I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how?"Some middle eastern countries ban Israelies from travelling to their countries. Does it make those countries safer and are they justified to ban Israelies? Have any Israelies committed terrorist acts in those countries? This has been going on for years where were the protests about bans on Israelies being allowed to travel to those countries???? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The acting Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department has said she doesn't believe the executive order is constitutional and has instructed lawyers at the Justice Department that they will not defend the executive order in court as long as she is attorney general... Trump's pick for AG hasn't been confirmed by the Senate yet....I wonder whether trump will fire the acting AG or wait for his pick to get through... I think any AG would have a tough job defending it. It's clearly arbitrary, almost certainly discriminatory and, as such unconstitutional and illegal. " Agreed. But let's not forget that Bush had the Justice Department defending torture....so I have no doubt Trump's AG will attempt a defence when he is confirmed. I'm glad the acting AG is standing her ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. More importantly how many Americans have been killed in the US by acts of terror committed by any nationals on Trumps banned list? You don't have to Google it I can tell you. A big fat Zero. But feel free to check for yourself. Correction this list of 7 countries was a list drawn up by President Obama. " No one is saying that there is not a terror risk from these countries. But clearly, as no terrorists have actually got into the US from these countries, the current vetting procedures and immigration controls are working. The US currently has the most effective vetting system and it can upto 2 years to clear for migrants and refugees. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.
I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how?
Some middle eastern countries ban Israelies from travelling to their countries. Does it make those countries safer and are they justified to ban Israelies? Have any Israelies committed terrorist acts in those countries? This has been going on for years where were the protests about bans on Israelies being allowed to travel to those countries????
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump uses populist policies to placate the section of the electorate that voted for him, I don't think anyone would blame any US president for attempting to combat terrorism, but this ridiculous ban is just a 'shouty shouty' reaction from a very inexperienced president..... His continued poor use of Twitter is a better indication of his inability to act presidential." A poll released in the USA shows Trump has a majority support for what he is doing. Why is anyone surprised by what Trump is doing? He is doing what he said he would do on his campaign trail if he were to be elected President. Now he is President he is carrying out his election pledges. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.
I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how?
Some middle eastern countries ban Israelies from travelling to their countries. Does it make those countries safer and are they justified to ban Israelies? Have any Israelies committed terrorist acts in those countries? This has been going on for years where were the protests about bans on Israelies being allowed to travel to those countries????
"The difference is that the US is still a democracy and still governed by the rule of law rather than the whim of a leader whether democratically elected or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.
I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how?
Some middle eastern countries ban Israelies from travelling to their countries. Does it make those countries safer and are they justified to ban Israelies? Have any Israelies committed terrorist acts in those countries? This has been going on for years where were the protests about bans on Israelies being allowed to travel to those countries????
"The fact that some countries do something wrong doesn't mean other countries should. As far as Americans are concerned, the President should uphold the Consitution of the United States. That is a requirement middle eastern countries aren't bound by. I'm not convinced this executive order is constitutional. Neither is the acting AG, several federal judges, and countless constitutional lawyers. The day I judge my President by the morals of a foreign state in the middle east is the day the constitution loses it's meaning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump uses populist policies to placate the section of the electorate that voted for him, I don't think anyone would blame any US president for attempting to combat terrorism, but this ridiculous ban is just a 'shouty shouty' reaction from a very inexperienced president..... His continued poor use of Twitter is a better indication of his inability to act presidential. A poll released in the USA shows Trump has a majority support for what he is doing. Why is anyone surprised by what Trump is doing? He is doing what he said he would do on his campaign trail if he were to be elected President. Now he is President he is carrying out his election pledges. " It's still unconstitutional whether he said he'd do it or not. You seem to getting majoritism mixed up with democracy. A democracy defends the interests of all with the rule of law, not solely the wishes of any majority from time to time. But then you took a similar stance on article 50 and parliament. No one, even the US president or the majority are above the law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.
I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how?
Some middle eastern countries ban Israelies from travelling to their countries. Does it make those countries safer and are they justified to ban Israelies? Have any Israelies committed terrorist acts in those countries? This has been going on for years where were the protests about bans on Israelies being allowed to travel to those countries????
The difference is that the US is still a democracy and still governed by the rule of law rather than the whim of a leader whether democratically elected or not. "That is a cop out. It still doesn't stop all these protestors organising protests against these countries who ban Israelies. If they can organise petitions and protests against Trump/usa then why not against countries banning Israelies? I just see many of these protestors as hypocrites who practice double standards and who have no consistency on the issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. More importantly how many Americans have been killed in the US by acts of terror committed by any nationals on Trumps banned list? You don't have to Google it I can tell you. A big fat Zero. But feel free to check for yourself. Well, apply that to Europe and the death toll rises and rises. The most recent being the Christmas market attacks. What is it they say? Prevention is better than a cure. lt's only going to happen more and more and the liberal lslamophiles will defend it to the point of a Caliphate forming. At that point, l'll be a on a beach in Netanya sunbathing while you pay the Jizya tax." Go on then. Tell us. How many Europeans have been killed by residents of those countries? And as an aside... how many Europeans have been murdered by radical Shia terrorists? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump uses populist policies to placate the section of the electorate that voted for him, I don't think anyone would blame any US president for attempting to combat terrorism, but this ridiculous ban is just a 'shouty shouty' reaction from a very inexperienced president..... His continued poor use of Twitter is a better indication of his inability to act presidential. A poll released in the USA shows Trump has a majority support for what he is doing. Why is anyone surprised by what Trump is doing? He is doing what he said he would do on his campaign trail if he were to be elected President. Now he is President he is carrying out his election pledges. It's still unconstitutional whether he said he'd do it or not. You seem to getting majoritism mixed up with democracy. A democracy defends the interests of all with the rule of law, not solely the wishes of any majority from time to time. But then you took a similar stance on article 50 and parliament. No one, even the US president or the majority are above the law." It will be dragged out in the American courts to determine whether or not it's unconstitutional. You are getting ahead of yourself, just as many Remainers did on here about article 50 and parliament when they said Scotland would have the final say. Turns out they were wrong and the Supreme court ruled Scotland would not have the final say. I'm not about to pre judge the outcome of any forth coming American court cases on this issue I think it would be foolish of anyone to say with certainty what the ruling of any future court cases will be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump uses populist policies to placate the section of the electorate that voted for him, I don't think anyone would blame any US president for attempting to combat terrorism, but this ridiculous ban is just a 'shouty shouty' reaction from a very inexperienced president..... His continued poor use of Twitter is a better indication of his inability to act presidential. A poll released in the USA shows Trump has a majority support for what he is doing. Why is anyone surprised by what Trump is doing? He is doing what he said he would do on his campaign trail if he were to be elected President. Now he is President he is carrying out his election pledges. It's still unconstitutional whether he said he'd do it or not. You seem to getting majoritism mixed up with democracy. A democracy defends the interests of all with the rule of law, not solely the wishes of any majority from time to time. But then you took a similar stance on article 50 and parliament. No one, even the US president or the majority are above the law. It will be dragged out in the American courts to determine whether or not it's unconstitutional. You are getting ahead of yourself, just as many Remainers did on here about article 50 and parliament when they said Scotland would have the final say. Turns out they were wrong and the Supreme court ruled Scotland would not have the final say. I'm not about to pre judge the outcome of any forth coming American court cases on this issue I think it would be foolish of anyone to say with certainty what the ruling of any future court cases will be. " Ridiculous. Some federal judges have made preliminary determinations. The Trump administration has already ignored a ruling of a federal judge in New York. The attorney General of New York State had to intervene to ask why he was receiving alarming reports that judicial decisions were being contravened. Democracy, upholding the constitution, respecting the rule of law. Trump's actions so far have given me no peace of mind that he will accept the decision of the judicial branch. He hasn't yet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump uses populist policies to placate the section of the electorate that voted for him, I don't think anyone would blame any US president for attempting to combat terrorism, but this ridiculous ban is just a 'shouty shouty' reaction from a very inexperienced president..... His continued poor use of Twitter is a better indication of his inability to act presidential. A poll released in the USA shows Trump has a majority support for what he is doing. Why is anyone surprised by what Trump is doing? He is doing what he said he would do on his campaign trail if he were to be elected President. Now he is President he is carrying out his election pledges. It's still unconstitutional whether he said he'd do it or not. You seem to getting majoritism mixed up with democracy. A democracy defends the interests of all with the rule of law, not solely the wishes of any majority from time to time. But then you took a similar stance on article 50 and parliament. No one, even the US president or the majority are above the law. It will be dragged out in the American courts to determine whether or not it's unconstitutional. You are getting ahead of yourself, just as many Remainers did on here about article 50 and parliament when they said Scotland would have the final say. Turns out they were wrong and the Supreme court ruled Scotland would not have the final say. I'm not about to pre judge the outcome of any forth coming American court cases on this issue I think it would be foolish of anyone to say with certainty what the ruling of any future court cases will be. Ridiculous. Some federal judges have made preliminary determinations. The Trump administration has already ignored a ruling of a federal judge in New York. The attorney General of New York State had to intervene to ask why he was receiving alarming reports that judicial decisions were being contravened. Democracy, upholding the constitution, respecting the rule of law. Trump's actions so far have given me no peace of mind that he will accept the decision of the judicial branch. He hasn't yet." Trump has right to reply and contest those decisions in the court system doesn't he. I'd like to hear what Trump's lawyers have to say on the matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump uses populist policies to placate the section of the electorate that voted for him, I don't think anyone would blame any US president for attempting to combat terrorism, but this ridiculous ban is just a 'shouty shouty' reaction from a very inexperienced president..... His continued poor use of Twitter is a better indication of his inability to act presidential. A poll released in the USA shows Trump has a majority support for what he is doing. Why is anyone surprised by what Trump is doing? He is doing what he said he would do on his campaign trail if he were to be elected President. Now he is President he is carrying out his election pledges. It's still unconstitutional whether he said he'd do it or not. You seem to getting majoritism mixed up with democracy. A democracy defends the interests of all with the rule of law, not solely the wishes of any majority from time to time. But then you took a similar stance on article 50 and parliament. No one, even the US president or the majority are above the law. It will be dragged out in the American courts to determine whether or not it's unconstitutional. You are getting ahead of yourself, just as many Remainers did on here about article 50 and parliament when they said Scotland would have the final say. Turns out they were wrong and the Supreme court ruled Scotland would not have the final say. I'm not about to pre judge the outcome of any forth coming American court cases on this issue I think it would be foolish of anyone to say with certainty what the ruling of any future court cases will be. Ridiculous. Some federal judges have made preliminary determinations. The Trump administration has already ignored a ruling of a federal judge in New York. The attorney General of New York State had to intervene to ask why he was receiving alarming reports that judicial decisions were being contravened. Democracy, upholding the constitution, respecting the rule of law. Trump's actions so far have given me no peace of mind that he will accept the decision of the judicial branch. He hasn't yet. Trump has right to reply and contest those decisions in the court system doesn't he. I'd like to hear what Trump's lawyers have to say on the matter. " He has to comply with the temporary stay order until the first hearing - which is set for February. Like I said, he has yet to show that he will. I'd like to see him do what he said he would do when he was sworn in..."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He seems to know as much about the Constitution and law in the United States as you do.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.
I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how?
Some middle eastern countries ban Israelies from travelling to their countries. Does it make those countries safer and are they justified to ban Israelies? Have any Israelies committed terrorist acts in those countries? This has been going on for years where were the protests about bans on Israelies being allowed to travel to those countries????
The difference is that the US is still a democracy and still governed by the rule of law rather than the whim of a leader whether democratically elected or not.
That is a cop out. It still doesn't stop all these protestors organising protests against these countries who ban Israelies. If they can organise petitions and protests against Trump/usa then why not against countries banning Israelies? I just see many of these protestors as hypocrites who practice double standards and who have no consistency on the issue. "But you have no consistency on the issue. You think countries shouldn't ban Israeli passports, whilst at the same time saying that Trump is right in what he's doing. So please try to pick a side. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump uses populist policies to placate the section of the electorate that voted for him, I don't think anyone would blame any US president for attempting to combat terrorism, but this ridiculous ban is just a 'shouty shouty' reaction from a very inexperienced president..... His continued poor use of Twitter is a better indication of his inability to act presidential. A poll released in the USA shows Trump has a majority support for what he is doing. Why is anyone surprised by what Trump is doing? He is doing what he said he would do on his campaign trail if he were to be elected President. Now he is President he is carrying out his election pledges. It's still unconstitutional whether he said he'd do it or not. You seem to getting majoritism mixed up with democracy. A democracy defends the interests of all with the rule of law, not solely the wishes of any majority from time to time. But then you took a similar stance on article 50 and parliament. No one, even the US president or the majority are above the law. It will be dragged out in the American courts to determine whether or not it's unconstitutional. You are getting ahead of yourself, just as many Remainers did on here about article 50 and parliament when they said Scotland would have the final say. Turns out they were wrong and the Supreme court ruled Scotland would not have the final say. I'm not about to pre judge the outcome of any forth coming American court cases on this issue I think it would be foolish of anyone to say with certainty what the ruling of any future court cases will be. Ridiculous. Some federal judges have made preliminary determinations. The Trump administration has already ignored a ruling of a federal judge in New York. The attorney General of New York State had to intervene to ask why he was receiving alarming reports that judicial decisions were being contravened. Democracy, upholding the constitution, respecting the rule of law. Trump's actions so far have given me no peace of mind that he will accept the decision of the judicial branch. He hasn't yet. Trump has right to reply and contest those decisions in the court system doesn't he. I'd like to hear what Trump's lawyers have to say on the matter. He has to comply with the temporary stay order until the first hearing - which is set for February. Like I said, he has yet to show that he will. I'd like to see him do what he said he would do when he was sworn in..."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He seems to know as much about the Constitution and law in the United States as you do. "Just to clarify - I don't mean this as an insult to you. You're not the President, you're not even an American - I expect him to know more than you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.
I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how?
Some middle eastern countries ban Israelies from travelling to their countries. Does it make those countries safer and are they justified to ban Israelies? Have any Israelies committed terrorist acts in those countries? This has been going on for years where were the protests about bans on Israelies being allowed to travel to those countries????
The difference is that the US is still a democracy and still governed by the rule of law rather than the whim of a leader whether democratically elected or not.
That is a cop out. It still doesn't stop all these protestors organising protests against these countries who ban Israelies. If they can organise petitions and protests against Trump/usa then why not against countries banning Israelies? I just see many of these protestors as hypocrites who practice double standards and who have no consistency on the issue.
But you have no consistency on the issue. You think countries shouldn't ban Israeli passports, whilst at the same time saying that Trump is right in what he's doing.
So please try to pick a side."I never said I think countries shouldn't ban Israeli citizens, only that some countries have adopted that policy. There is a clear difference. The hypocrisy is from those signing petitions and going on protests against Trump/USA while they don't protest or start/sign petitions against countries banning Israelis. I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against Trump/USA and I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against countries banning Israelis from travelling there, so am entirety consistent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.
I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how?
Some middle eastern countries ban Israelies from travelling to their countries. Does it make those countries safer and are they justified to ban Israelies? Have any Israelies committed terrorist acts in those countries? This has been going on for years where were the protests about bans on Israelies being allowed to travel to those countries????
The difference is that the US is still a democracy and still governed by the rule of law rather than the whim of a leader whether democratically elected or not.
That is a cop out. It still doesn't stop all these protestors organising protests against these countries who ban Israelies. If they can organise petitions and protests against Trump/usa then why not against countries banning Israelies? I just see many of these protestors as hypocrites who practice double standards and who have no consistency on the issue.
But you have no consistency on the issue. You think countries shouldn't ban Israeli passports, whilst at the same time saying that Trump is right in what he's doing.
So please try to pick a side."From what l gleaned, it was the double standards that he is highlighting. lf you are lsraeli, you cannot enter 16 Muslim nation and some others are funny with you. Where is the outcry? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The acting Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department has said she doesn't believe the executive order is constitutional and has instructed lawyers at the Justice Department that they will not defend the executive order in court as long as she is attorney general... Trump's pick for AG hasn't been confirmed by the Senate yet....I wonder whether trump will fire the acting AG or wait for his pick to get through..." And she's fired. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting." As an American I'm so ashamed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed " Many Americans are ashamed that they put up with the likes of Obama for years, you need to put that behind you and realise that you now have a strong president who can actually change the usa for the better . Visiting the USA is a "privilege" granted to other countries of the world from the people of the USA, it is not a god dam right. This "Privilege" has been rightly evoked for 3 months until correct legislations are put in place and once in place, anyone who applies for entry will be vetted and if and only if deemed suitable, they will then be invited by privilege to enter under the new conditions . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A religious war is starting, shit is going to hit the fan" Perhaps, but you need to remember, God is on the side of us Christians  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A religious war is starting, shit is going to hit the fan Perhaps, but you need to remember, God is on the side of us Christians "i can see you need an imaginary friend as an emotional crutch.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump uses populist policies to placate the section of the electorate that voted for him, I don't think anyone would blame any US president for attempting to combat terrorism, but this ridiculous ban is just a 'shouty shouty' reaction from a very inexperienced president..... His continued poor use of Twitter is a better indication of his inability to act presidential. A poll released in the USA shows Trump has a majority support for what he is doing. Why is anyone surprised by what Trump is doing? He is doing what he said he would do on his campaign trail if he were to be elected President. Now he is President he is carrying out his election pledges. It's still unconstitutional whether he said he'd do it or not. You seem to getting majoritism mixed up with democracy. A democracy defends the interests of all with the rule of law, not solely the wishes of any majority from time to time. But then you took a similar stance on article 50 and parliament. No one, even the US president or the majority are above the law. It will be dragged out in the American courts to determine whether or not it's unconstitutional. You are getting ahead of yourself, just as many Remainers did on here about article 50 and parliament when they said Scotland would have the final say. Turns out they were wrong and the Supreme court ruled Scotland would not have the final say. I'm not about to pre judge the outcome of any forth coming American court cases on this issue I think it would be foolish of anyone to say with certainty what the ruling of any future court cases will be. " If you check back through my posts on Article 50 and parliament you'll see that I always said that the government would win on devolved assemblies/parliaments and loose on Westminster. Trump has already conceded on Green Card holders and I'm pretty sure the whole ban, as currently constructed, will be ruled unconstitutional. But you're right on one thing; you can never be 100% sure on getting any legal ruling however a number of federal judges and (the now former) AG have already said they think the order is unconstitutional and illegal. I never give my opinion on law based on my political beliefs, I only give it based on my understanding of the relevant law. I'll also concede that my understanding of US constitutional law and US law in general is not as wide as UK law but similar principles apply to both. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A religious war is starting, shit is going to hit the fan Perhaps, but you need to remember, God is on the side of us Christians i can see you need an imaginary friend as an emotional crutch. "You wouldn't say that to a Muslim because you are scared to be accused of bigotry. So go after the Christians. Easy targets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed Many Americans are ashamed that they put up with the likes of Obama for years, you need to put that behind you and realise that you now have a strong president who can actually change the usa for the better . Visiting the USA is a "privilege" granted to other countries of the world from the people of the USA, it is not a god dam right. This "Privilege" has been rightly evoked for 3 months until correct legislations are put in place and once in place, anyone who applies for entry will be vetted and if and only if deemed suitable, they will then be invited by privilege to enter under the new conditions . " The US already vets all applicants for visas, refugees and immigration in a process that can take up to 2 years. Maybe you can tell what new vetting Trump is thinking about that is not currently being done? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed Many Americans are ashamed that they put up with the likes of Obama for years, you need to put that behind you and realise that you now have a strong president who can actually change the usa for the better . Visiting the USA is a "privilege" granted to other countries of the world from the people of the USA, it is not a god dam right. This "Privilege" has been rightly evoked for 3 months until correct legislations are put in place and once in place, anyone who applies for entry will be vetted and if and only if deemed suitable, they will then be invited by privilege to enter under the new conditions . The US already vets all applicants for visas, refugees and immigration in a process that can take up to 2 years. Maybe you can tell what new vetting Trump is thinking about that is not currently being done?" You know, as well as we know, that the 90 day ban is to enable tightening of regulations, what is wrong with that? can you not accept change? get used to it, its life | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A religious war is starting, shit is going to hit the fan Perhaps, but you need to remember, God is on the side of us Christians i can see you need an imaginary friend as an emotional crutch.
You wouldn't say that to a Muslim because you are scared to be accused of bigotry. So go after the Christians. Easy targets."or perhaps "losing his head" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed Many Americans are ashamed that they put up with the likes of Obama for years, you need to put that behind you and realise that you now have a strong president who can actually change the usa for the better . Visiting the USA is a "privilege" granted to other countries of the world from the people of the USA, it is not a god dam right. This "Privilege" has been rightly evoked for 3 months until correct legislations are put in place and once in place, anyone who applies for entry will be vetted and if and only if deemed suitable, they will then be invited by privilege to enter under the new conditions . The US already vets all applicants for visas, refugees and immigration in a process that can take up to 2 years. Maybe you can tell what new vetting Trump is thinking about that is not currently being done? You know, as well as we know, that the 90 day ban is to enable tightening of regulations, what is wrong with that? can you not accept change? get used to it, its life" Why don't you answer the question? The US already has the strongest vetting of any Western country. What weaknesses and failings are to be addressed? You clearly didn't see the link that was previously posted where Rudi Guiliano slipped up. Y admitting that Trump asked him how he could make a Muslim ban legal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed Many Americans are ashamed that they put up with the likes of Obama for years, you need to put that behind you and realise that you now have a strong president who can actually change the usa for the better . Visiting the USA is a "privilege" granted to other countries of the world from the people of the USA, it is not a god dam right. This "Privilege" has been rightly evoked for 3 months until correct legislations are put in place and once in place, anyone who applies for entry will be vetted and if and only if deemed suitable, they will then be invited by privilege to enter under the new conditions . The US already vets all applicants for visas, refugees and immigration in a process that can take up to 2 years. Maybe you can tell what new vetting Trump is thinking about that is not currently being done? You know, as well as we know, that the 90 day ban is to enable tightening of regulations, what is wrong with that? can you not accept change? get used to it, its life Why don't you answer the question? The US already has the strongest vetting of any Western country. What weaknesses and failings are to be addressed? You clearly didn't see the link that was previously posted where Rudi Guiliano slipped up. Y admitting that Trump asked him how he could make a Muslim ban legal. " I am not a mind reader, obviously there are weaknesses and failings and these are being addressed right now and hence (hello; the 90 day ban) once regulations have been tightened, I am sure the new regulations will be on all news channels for you to hear about, (depending on how corrupt the broadcasting company is, and who runs the company)
no I did not see the link and I would probably not click on an unknown link anyway.
why are you so hell bent that you want to interfere with the running of the USA? you are aware, you have no say in the matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed Many Americans are ashamed that they put up with the likes of Obama for years, you need to put that behind you and realise that you now have a strong president who can actually change the usa for the better . Visiting the USA is a "privilege" granted to other countries of the world from the people of the USA, it is not a god dam right. This "Privilege" has been rightly evoked for 3 months until correct legislations are put in place and once in place, anyone who applies for entry will be vetted and if and only if deemed suitable, they will then be invited by privilege to enter under the new conditions . The US already vets all applicants for visas, refugees and immigration in a process that can take up to 2 years. Maybe you can tell what new vetting Trump is thinking about that is not currently being done? You know, as well as we know, that the 90 day ban is to enable tightening of regulations, what is wrong with that? can you not accept change? get used to it, its life" I note you didn't answer the question. I'll try again. What tightening of the regulations do you expect because I'm pretty sure that whatever you suggest is already being done? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed Many Americans are ashamed that they put up with the likes of Obama for years, you need to put that behind you and realise that you now have a strong president who can actually change the usa for the better . Visiting the USA is a "privilege" granted to other countries of the world from the people of the USA, it is not a god dam right. This "Privilege" has been rightly evoked for 3 months until correct legislations are put in place and once in place, anyone who applies for entry will be vetted and if and only if deemed suitable, they will then be invited by privilege to enter under the new conditions . The US already vets all applicants for visas, refugees and immigration in a process that can take up to 2 years. Maybe you can tell what new vetting Trump is thinking about that is not currently being done? You know, as well as we know, that the 90 day ban is to enable tightening of regulations, what is wrong with that? can you not accept change? get used to it, its life I note you didn't answer the question. I'll try again. What tightening of the regulations do you expect because I'm pretty sure that whatever you suggest is already being done?" what do you not understand on the fact I am not the person tightening regulations; the tightening of visa & visa waiver have no real concern to me, I will still be able to visit the amazing country 2 or 3 times a year, enjoy my travel and realistically will indeed feel safer due to the work of the new president as, after all it will be for the safety of American citizens and Law abiding tourists like myself So again, you just have to have faith in the American President and believe he is protecting the nation, just a shame the UK government does not follow his lead to protect us. or should I say, England you are aware us scots can handle ourselves, recall the terrorists trying to blow up Glasgow airport, couple of passing scots gave them a right kicking before the police arrived | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed Many Americans are ashamed that they put up with the likes of Obama for years, you need to put that behind you and realise that you now have a strong president who can actually change the usa for the better . Visiting the USA is a "privilege" granted to other countries of the world from the people of the USA, it is not a god dam right. This "Privilege" has been rightly evoked for 3 months until correct legislations are put in place and once in place, anyone who applies for entry will be vetted and if and only if deemed suitable, they will then be invited by privilege to enter under the new conditions . The US already vets all applicants for visas, refugees and immigration in a process that can take up to 2 years. Maybe you can tell what new vetting Trump is thinking about that is not currently being done? You know, as well as we know, that the 90 day ban is to enable tightening of regulations, what is wrong with that? can you not accept change? get used to it, its life I note you didn't answer the question. I'll try again. What tightening of the regulations do you expect because I'm pretty sure that whatever you suggest is already being done? what do you not understand on the fact I am not the person tightening regulations; the tightening of visa & visa waiver have no real concern to me, I will still be able to visit the amazing country 2 or 3 times a year, enjoy my travel and realistically will indeed feel safer due to the work of the new president as, after all it will be for the safety of American citizens and Law abiding tourists like myself So again, you just have to have faith in the American President and believe he is protecting the nation, just a shame the UK government does not follow his lead to protect us. or should I say, England you are aware us scots can handle ourselves, recall the terrorists trying to blow up Glasgow airport, couple of passing scots gave them a right kicking before the police arrived "If you're so capable, then why are you so scared of innocent people? Land of the free and home of the brave it is not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you're so capable, then why are you so scared of innocent people? Land of the free and home of the brave it is not." tumble; lost you try and explain yourself a little better | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you're so capable, then why are you so scared of innocent people? Land of the free and home of the brave it is not. tumble; lost you try and explain yourself a little better" You are scared of innocent women and children. That's why you dont want them there when you visit the US a few times a year. You say you will feel safer that they are not there. I think that's really pathetic. Land of the free and home of the brave is a line from the US national anthem, obviously the people who are supporting this ban aren't very brave if they, like you, are scared of innocent women and children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed Many Americans are ashamed that they put up with the likes of Obama for years, you need to put that behind you and realise that you now have a strong president who can actually change the usa for the better . Visiting the USA is a "privilege" granted to other countries of the world from the people of the USA, it is not a god dam right. This "Privilege" has been rightly evoked for 3 months until correct legislations are put in place and once in place, anyone who applies for entry will be vetted and if and only if deemed suitable, they will then be invited by privilege to enter under the new conditions . The US already vets all applicants for visas, refugees and immigration in a process that can take up to 2 years. Maybe you can tell what new vetting Trump is thinking about that is not currently being done? You know, as well as we know, that the 90 day ban is to enable tightening of regulations, what is wrong with that? can you not accept change? get used to it, its life I note you didn't answer the question. I'll try again. What tightening of the regulations do you expect because I'm pretty sure that whatever you suggest is already being done? what do you not understand on the fact I am not the person tightening regulations; the tightening of visa & visa waiver have no real concern to me, I will still be able to visit the amazing country 2 or 3 times a year, enjoy my travel and realistically will indeed feel safer due to the work of the new president as, after all it will be for the safety of American citizens and Law abiding tourists like myself So again, you just have to have faith in the American President and believe he is protecting the nation, just a shame the UK government does not follow his lead to protect us. or should I say, England you are aware us scots can handle ourselves, recall the terrorists trying to blow up Glasgow airport, couple of passing scots gave them a right kicking before the police arrived "Not a single Shia has ever committed a terrorist offence in the West and there is no intelligence to support any terrorist threat coming from anywhere other than Wahhabism and extreme Sunni's. Just like the guy who gives you a hard on every time he opens his mouth, you are ignorant as to where the terrorist threat is coming from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Continue here, lets see what will happen with his extreme vetting. As an American I'm so ashamed " Me too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an immigration crisis they should on paper go to the nearest country, so in this instance with syria, they should go to turkey or russia." Just as well you are not in charge of it then. An international crisis requires an international solution. Your suggestion is that refugees from a war zone should only be allowed in the neighbouring country so as to also ovwerwhelm that country and create a second crisis. Come on - think it through. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an immigration crisis they should on paper go to the nearest country, so in this instance with syria, they should go to turkey or russia." Worked well for the Jews in 1939? Get real and grow up; It's a crisis, global, one of " our" own making, with one of the prime causes being the US, and the US's lapdog, UK. With a bit of help from other " western " nations who were bullied into it. The world needs to solve it; the US needs to play its part. But then, after destroying Iraq, Dubya Bush said " we don't do nation building". After WW2, Germany was about as trashed ( perhaps more) than Iraq; the " Allies" rebuilt it. Of course, that's one of the things that US governments ( and the ignorant uneducated majority in the US) now hate; they rebuilt a successful nation... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an immigration crisis they should on paper go to the nearest country, so in this instance with syria, they should go to turkey or russia. Just as well you are not in charge of it then. An international crisis requires an international solution. Your suggestion is that refugees from a war zone should only be allowed in the neighbouring country so as to also ovwerwhelm that country and create a second crisis. Come on - think it through." That is right and it requires that too, but it seems like it is always the western world that helps and never the arab nation or the far east and china. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an immigration crisis they should on paper go to the nearest country, so in this instance with syria, they should go to turkey or russia. Just as well you are not in charge of it then. An international crisis requires an international solution. Your suggestion is that refugees from a war zone should only be allowed in the neighbouring country so as to also ovwerwhelm that country and create a second crisis. Come on - think it through.That is right and it requires that too, but it seems like it is always the western world that helps and never the arab nation or the far east and china." One day you will actually start to understand. ( perhaps) Try doing some real reading of international affairs; Find out about migration; who moves to where, and why, in the far east. Go and find out what proportion of Arab states are sheltering others from other nations. Do you actually know the percentages, for instance of how many of the Jordanian population are Jordanians? How many are refugees from other nations? Or Egypt? Or Kuwait? Or any other Arab state? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an immigration crisis they should on paper go to the nearest country, so in this instance with syria, they should go to turkey or russia. Just as well you are not in charge of it then. An international crisis requires an international solution. Your suggestion is that refugees from a war zone should only be allowed in the neighbouring country so as to also ovwerwhelm that country and create a second crisis. Come on - think it through.That is right and it requires that too, but it seems like it is always the western world that helps and never the arab nation or the far east and china." Never an Arab nation? Are you taking the piss? They have taken around 5 million refugees from Syria, the UK says we will take 20,000 and the US has taken around 19,000. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't read all of the 240 ish posts on these threads, so apologies if this has been mentioned before. Would there have been mass protests if someone else had done this? It's a rhetorical question, I know the answer, and its no. How do I know? Because it was in fact Obama who first singled out these 7 countries as being " high risk ", and put measures in place to make it harder for people from those countries to get into the USA, Trump has just upped the ante a little by implementing a 90 day ban, to give the department's involved in making the decision about who can or can't go in, time to come up with a better screening process. It's not a perfect solution, and he has handled it awkwardly, but he's only doing what he said he would do. Where are the mass protests about the countries who have banned people from Israel entering? Some countrys won't even let you in if you have just VISITED Israel... How about some protests about that?" Israel protests? No idea. But look up logical fallacies. Specifically 'composition / division' -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an immigration crisis they should on paper go to the nearest country, so in this instance with syria, they should go to turkey or russia. Just as well you are not in charge of it then. An international crisis requires an international solution. Your suggestion is that refugees from a war zone should only be allowed in the neighbouring country so as to also ovwerwhelm that country and create a second crisis. Come on - think it through.That is right and it requires that too, but it seems like it is always the western world that helps and never the arab nation or the far east and china. One day you will actually start to understand. ( perhaps) Try doing some real reading of international affairs; Find out about migration; who moves to where, and why, in the far east. Go and find out what proportion of Arab states are sheltering others from other nations. Do you actually know the percentages, for instance of how many of the Jordanian population are Jordanians? How many are refugees from other nations? Or Egypt? Or Kuwait? Or any other Arab state? " patronising or what | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an immigration crisis they should on paper go to the nearest country, so in this instance with syria, they should go to turkey or russia. Just as well you are not in charge of it then. An international crisis requires an international solution. Your suggestion is that refugees from a war zone should only be allowed in the neighbouring country so as to also ovwerwhelm that country and create a second crisis. Come on - think it through.That is right and it requires that too, but it seems like it is always the western world that helps and never the arab nation or the far east and china. One day you will actually start to understand. ( perhaps) Try doing some real reading of international affairs; Find out about migration; who moves to where, and why, in the far east. Go and find out what proportion of Arab states are sheltering others from other nations. Do you actually know the percentages, for instance of how many of the Jordanian population are Jordanians? How many are refugees from other nations? Or Egypt? Or Kuwait? Or any other Arab state? patronising or what "Looks as though Steve Austin is too scared to even answer the question as to why he is scared of innocent women and children! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Remarkably, Yates was asked in senate confirmation hearings what she would say to a president who wanted to do something unlawful – and the person who asked the question was Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Sessions prefaced his question by telling Yates: “You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say no about. “Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president, if he asks for something that is improper? … If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?” Yates told Sessions: “Senator I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.”" FYI - This is copied from an article in the Guardian. For everyone talking about other countries, I repeat: Trump has to follow the Constitution of the United States - something a middle eastern country (or any other country) isn't bound by. And for those talking about it being Obama's list - it isn't the list itself that is being accused of being unconstitutional - it is what he is imposing on individuals from countries on that list. If you think Obama acted unconstitutionally, please do explain. I'm more than happy to lay out what provisions of the constitution I believe Trump is breaking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Remarkably, Yates was asked in senate confirmation hearings what she would say to a president who wanted to do something unlawful – and the person who asked the question was Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Sessions prefaced his question by telling Yates: “You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say no about. “Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president, if he asks for something that is improper? … If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?” Yates told Sessions: “Senator I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.” FYI - This is copied from an article in the Guardian. For everyone talking about other countries, I repeat: Trump has to follow the Constitution of the United States - something a middle eastern country (or any other country) isn't bound by. And for those talking about it being Obama's list - it isn't the list itself that is being accused of being unconstitutional - it is what he is imposing on individuals from countries on that list. If you think Obama acted unconstitutionally, please do explain. I'm more than happy to lay out what provisions of the constitution I believe Trump is breaking." not really interested in "what (you) believe" prefer to see how events roll out - factual; without every ones if and buts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Remarkably, Yates was asked in senate confirmation hearings what she would say to a president who wanted to do something unlawful – and the person who asked the question was Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Sessions prefaced his question by telling Yates: “You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say no about. “Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president, if he asks for something that is improper? … If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?” Yates told Sessions: “Senator I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.” FYI - This is copied from an article in the Guardian. For everyone talking about other countries, I repeat: Trump has to follow the Constitution of the United States - something a middle eastern country (or any other country) isn't bound by. And for those talking about it being Obama's list - it isn't the list itself that is being accused of being unconstitutional - it is what he is imposing on individuals from countries on that list. If you think Obama acted unconstitutionally, please do explain. I'm more than happy to lay out what provisions of the constitution I believe Trump is breaking. not really interested in "what (you) believe" prefer to see how events roll out - factual; without every ones if and buts" Right - it's a nice way to shut down discussion. As I said above numerous federal courts have already made preliminary determinations. Against trump executive order. Some of which we're ignored by his administration. So I wish people really did care about how events are rolling out. And my comment above speaks to all the nonsense being bandied about by pro-Trump individuals about Israel and Obama. False parallels. You can't pick and choose your facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Remarkably, Yates was asked in senate confirmation hearings what she would say to a president who wanted to do something unlawful – and the person who asked the question was Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Sessions prefaced his question by telling Yates: “You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say no about. “Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president, if he asks for something that is improper? … If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?” Yates told Sessions: “Senator I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.” FYI - This is copied from an article in the Guardian. For everyone talking about other countries, I repeat: Trump has to follow the Constitution of the United States - something a middle eastern country (or any other country) isn't bound by. And for those talking about it being Obama's list - it isn't the list itself that is being accused of being unconstitutional - it is what he is imposing on individuals from countries on that list. If you think Obama acted unconstitutionally, please do explain. I'm more than happy to lay out what provisions of the constitution I believe Trump is breaking. not really interested in "what (you) believe" prefer to see how events roll out - factual; without every ones if and buts Right - it's a nice way to shut down discussion. As I said above numerous federal courts have already made preliminary determinations. Against trump executive order. Some of which we're ignored by his administration. So I wish people really did care about how events are rolling out. And my comment above speaks to all the nonsense being bandied about by pro-Trump individuals about Israel and Obama. False parallels. You can't pick and choose your facts." in your opinion of course - "nonsense" . and define of whom you are directing your comments when you state "You" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" not really interested in "what (you) believe" prefer to see how events roll out - factual; without every ones if and buts" If you’re not interested in other people’s opinions, perhaps a forum isn’t the right place for you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years. "very much so | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Remarkably, Yates was asked in senate confirmation hearings what she would say to a president who wanted to do something unlawful – and the person who asked the question was Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Sessions prefaced his question by telling Yates: “You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say no about. “Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president, if he asks for something that is improper? … If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?” Yates told Sessions: “Senator I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.” FYI - This is copied from an article in the Guardian. For everyone talking about other countries, I repeat: Trump has to follow the Constitution of the United States - something a middle eastern country (or any other country) isn't bound by. And for those talking about it being Obama's list - it isn't the list itself that is being accused of being unconstitutional - it is what he is imposing on individuals from countries on that list. If you think Obama acted unconstitutionally, please do explain. I'm more than happy to lay out what provisions of the constitution I believe Trump is breaking. not really interested in "what (you) believe" prefer to see how events roll out - factual; without every ones if and buts Right - it's a nice way to shut down discussion. As I said above numerous federal courts have already made preliminary determinations. Against trump executive order. Some of which we're ignored by his administration. So I wish people really did care about how events are rolling out. And my comment above speaks to all the nonsense being bandied about by pro-Trump individuals about Israel and Obama. False parallels. You can't pick and choose your facts. in your opinion of course - "nonsense" . and define of whom you are directing your comments when you state "You"" Yes. In my opinion, nonesense. Is that the best you can come up with to argue against what I've said? Kinda proves my point. And I mean "you" generally. I see a lot of opinion and false equivalencies on this thread. My post wasn't all opinion, it was factual as well - namely the parts about the Constitution not being relevant in the middle east and the preliminary decisions of federal judges in the US. These are things people should know but posts about what happens to Israelis in the middle east and Obama's list show that people clearly don't know it. As I said, people can't choose their facts (often misleadingly). Then I'm told how we should wait for how things roll out - factual. Right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In an immigration crisis they should on paper go to the nearest country, so in this instance with syria, they should go to turkey or russia. Just as well you are not in charge of it then. An international crisis requires an international solution. Your suggestion is that refugees from a war zone should only be allowed in the neighbouring country so as to also ovwerwhelm that country and create a second crisis. Come on - think it through.That is right and it requires that too, but it seems like it is always the western world that helps and never the arab nation or the far east and china." There are over 2 million Syrian citizens currently resident in Saudi Araba. They don't call them refugees because they give them full residency. That's more than the total for all of Europe and the US. Turkey and Jordan have similar numbers of Syrians living within their borders. I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia or the government's of most Arab countries but there is enough legitimate reasons to criticise them without having to make up lies about them not pulling their weight in trying to solve the middle east refugee crisis. Same also applies to Turkey. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"absolutely nothing wrong with change, get used to it, it happens from birth to death, if you don't move with the times you will be left behind, Trump is adjusting regulations for the better & well being of his country....death to America is the number one chant in the middle east. Do they have a top 10.?..well that chant has held the number one spot for the last thirty years.
Absolutely
and yet when the U.S. President wishes to tighten regulation, foolish Brits protest, you couldn't make it up
them same protesters will be the ones who take their kids to Disney and expect full protection.
I fail to see how arbitrarily setting a ban on countries that have no record of sending terrorists to the US is actually going to make anyone safer. Maybe you could tell me how?
Some middle eastern countries ban Israelies from travelling to their countries. Does it make those countries safer and are they justified to ban Israelies? Have any Israelies committed terrorist acts in those countries? This has been going on for years where were the protests about bans on Israelies being allowed to travel to those countries????
The difference is that the US is still a democracy and still governed by the rule of law rather than the whim of a leader whether democratically elected or not.
That is a cop out. It still doesn't stop all these protestors organising protests against these countries who ban Israelies. If they can organise petitions and protests against Trump/usa then why not against countries banning Israelies? I just see many of these protestors as hypocrites who practice double standards and who have no consistency on the issue.
But you have no consistency on the issue. You think countries shouldn't ban Israeli passports, whilst at the same time saying that Trump is right in what he's doing.
So please try to pick a side.
I never said I think countries shouldn't ban Israeli citizens, only that some countries have adopted that policy. There is a clear difference. The hypocrisy is from those signing petitions and going on protests against Trump/USA while they don't protest or start/sign petitions against countries banning Israelis. I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against Trump/USA and I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against countries banning Israelis from travelling there, so am entirety consistent. "And many of us have protested those various things in many ways; whether it be by petitions, lobbying MPs or Ministers, supporting pressure groups, This one happens to have a public face of a oetition( which has, by the way, forced parliament to debate the issue- set for 20 February BTW,) whatever the outcome of it, it sends a message to whatever is left of the US government that there are concerns. Problem being that the US government is Steve Bannon, and no-one else. I have had many constructive replies, via MOs from ministers, who have clearly had to, at least, consider my views and concerns. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". The hypocrisy is from those signing petitions and going on protests against Trump/USA while they don't protest or start/sign petitions against countries banning Israelis. I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against Trump/USA and I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against countries banning Israelis from travelling there, so am entirety consistent. And many of us have protested those various things in many ways; whether it be by petitions, lobbying MPs or Ministers, supporting pressure groups, This one happens to have a public face of a oetition( which has, by the way, forced parliament to debate the issue- set for 20 February BTW,) whatever the outcome of it, it sends a message to whatever is left of the US government that there are concerns. Problem being that the US government is Steve Bannon, and no-one else. I have had many constructive replies, via MOs from ministers, who have clearly had to, at least, consider my views and concerns." Government Petitions LOL; yes, you will find it at the top of the google listing - to keep him out of UK and to continue bad mouthing him . Why . Because Google have fallen out with him big time; . Try the same search for the petition to keep the visit to UK . you will have trouble finding it, why? because Google don't want it found | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". The hypocrisy is from those signing petitions and going on protests against Trump/USA while they don't protest or start/sign petitions against countries banning Israelis. I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against Trump/USA and I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against countries banning Israelis from travelling there, so am entirety consistent. And many of us have protested those various things in many ways; whether it be by petitions, lobbying MPs or Ministers, supporting pressure groups, This one happens to have a public face of a oetition( which has, by the way, forced parliament to debate the issue- set for 20 February BTW,) whatever the outcome of it, it sends a message to whatever is left of the US government that there are concerns. Problem being that the US government is Steve Bannon, and no-one else. I have had many constructive replies, via MOs from ministers, who have clearly had to, at least, consider my views and concerns. Government Petitions LOL; yes, you will find it at the top of the google listing - to keep him out of UK and to continue bad mouthing him . Why . Because Google have fallen out with him big time; . Try the same search for the petition to keep the visit to UK . you will have trouble finding it, why? because Google don't want it found" I would have expected it. Brin is a refugee. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". The hypocrisy is from those signing petitions and going on protests against Trump/USA while they don't protest or start/sign petitions against countries banning Israelis. I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against Trump/USA and I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against countries banning Israelis from travelling there, so am entirety consistent. And many of us have protested those various things in many ways; whether it be by petitions, lobbying MPs or Ministers, supporting pressure groups, This one happens to have a public face of a oetition( which has, by the way, forced parliament to debate the issue- set for 20 February BTW,) whatever the outcome of it, it sends a message to whatever is left of the US government that there are concerns. Problem being that the US government is Steve Bannon, and no-one else. I have had many constructive replies, via MOs from ministers, who have clearly had to, at least, consider my views and concerns. Government Petitions LOL; yes, you will find it at the top of the google listing - to keep him out of UK and to continue bad mouthing him . Why . Because Google have fallen out with him big time; . Try the same search for the petition to keep the visit to UK . you will have trouble finding it, why? because Google don't want it found" OK, I explained to you how google worked on the other thread you copied and pasted this same message to. So how about I ridicule your lack of reading comprehension on this one? The text of the petition... it's not very long, so I'm sure you will keep up... "Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen." I point it out to you in case you missed it.... it explicitly states he should be allowed to enter the UK, just should not be invited for a state visit. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". The hypocrisy is from those signing petitions and going on protests against Trump/USA while they don't protest or start/sign petitions against countries banning Israelis. I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against Trump/USA and I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against countries banning Israelis from travelling there, so am entirety consistent. And many of us have protested those various things in many ways; whether it be by petitions, lobbying MPs or Ministers, supporting pressure groups, This one happens to have a public face of a oetition( which has, by the way, forced parliament to debate the issue- set for 20 February BTW,) whatever the outcome of it, it sends a message to whatever is left of the US government that there are concerns. Problem being that the US government is Steve Bannon, and no-one else. I have had many constructive replies, via MOs from ministers, who have clearly had to, at least, consider my views and concerns. Government Petitions LOL; yes, you will find it at the top of the google listing - to keep him out of UK and to continue bad mouthing him . Why . Because Google have fallen out with him big time; . Try the same search for the petition to keep the visit to UK . you will have trouble finding it, why? because Google don't want it found OK, I explained to you how google worked on the other thread you copied and pasted this same message to. So how about I ridicule your lack of reading comprehension on this one? The text of the petition... it's not very long, so I'm sure you will keep up... "Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen." I point it out to you in case you missed it.... it explicitly states he should be allowed to enter the UK, just should not be invited for a state visit. -Matt" Matt grow up, you honestly think the Queen cannot handle Trump, this would benefit both Countries and calm him down at same time you need to open your eyes and stop running with the crowds . think about it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". The hypocrisy is from those signing petitions and going on protests against Trump/USA while they don't protest or start/sign petitions against countries banning Israelis. I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against Trump/USA and I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against countries banning Israelis from travelling there, so am entirety consistent. And many of us have protested those various things in many ways; whether it be by petitions, lobbying MPs or Ministers, supporting pressure groups, This one happens to have a public face of a oetition( which has, by the way, forced parliament to debate the issue- set for 20 February BTW,) whatever the outcome of it, it sends a message to whatever is left of the US government that there are concerns. Problem being that the US government is Steve Bannon, and no-one else. I have had many constructive replies, via MOs from ministers, who have clearly had to, at least, consider my views and concerns. Government Petitions LOL; yes, you will find it at the top of the google listing - to keep him out of UK and to continue bad mouthing him . Why . Because Google have fallen out with him big time; . Try the same search for the petition to keep the visit to UK . you will have trouble finding it, why? because Google don't want it found OK, I explained to you how google worked on the other thread you copied and pasted this same message to. So how about I ridicule your lack of reading comprehension on this one? The text of the petition... it's not very long, so I'm sure you will keep up... "Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen." I point it out to you in case you missed it.... it explicitly states he should be allowed to enter the UK, just should not be invited for a state visit. -Matt Matt grow up, you honestly think the Queen cannot handle Trump, this would benefit both Countries and calm him down at same time you need to open your eyes and stop running with the crowds . think about it" Read again. What do you know I honestly think? You don't know. You know why you don't know? Because I didn't say what I think above. I copied the content of the petition so you could read it as you for some reason think it is about banning Trump from entering the country. Which it *explicitly* states it is not. That is not my opinion. That is not what I think. That is what that petition states. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting back to the Israeli being banned from Muslim countries, the Israelis have been banning Palestinians from Israel both Christian and Muslims since 1948. They build a wall to continue keeping them out. the main reason why Israel is banned from Many Muslim countries is because of their treatment of the Palestinians since 48. In the past Muslims and Jewish people lived side by side peacefully. Many people seem to forget that, they try to pin it on anti semitism preached by white supremacists. But like everything they are seriously wrong. "
It's not just Arab or just Muslim countries that have a problem with Israel. Israel is in breach of numerous international laws and has been subject to multiple condemnation from international organisations such as the UN.
They dont even treat their allies very well, having attacked a US Navy vessels killing 34 and injuring 170+ others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". The hypocrisy is from those signing petitions and going on protests against Trump/USA while they don't protest or start/sign petitions against countries banning Israelis. I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against Trump/USA and I've not signed any petitions or gone on any protests against countries banning Israelis from travelling there, so am entirety consistent. And many of us have protested those various things in many ways; whether it be by petitions, lobbying MPs or Ministers, supporting pressure groups, This one happens to have a public face of a oetition( which has, by the way, forced parliament to debate the issue- set for 20 February BTW,) whatever the outcome of it, it sends a message to whatever is left of the US government that there are concerns. Problem being that the US government is Steve Bannon, and no-one else. I have had many constructive replies, via MOs from ministers, who have clearly had to, at least, consider my views and concerns. Government Petitions LOL; yes, you will find it at the top of the google listing - to keep him out of UK and to continue bad mouthing him . Why . Because Google have fallen out with him big time; . Try the same search for the petition to keep the visit to UK . you will have trouble finding it, why? because Google don't want it found" Paranoid to. The reason why one is higher than the other is that one has been visited by 2,000,000 and the other 100,000. Google's algorithm always puts the more visited site above the less visited. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask." I'm not sure about the last 17 years but for 2017 the numbers I've found at the moment are: 200 recorded Islamic attacks in 30 countries, in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured. As opposed to one Christian attack in one country in which six people have been killed and eight injured. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. I'm not sure about the last 17 years but for 2017 the numbers I've found at the moment are: 200 recorded Islamic attacks in 30 countries, in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured. As opposed to one Christian attack in one country in which six people have been killed and eight injured. " Wow. Looks like the Nazarene was peaceful compared to ole' Mohammed - who married a girl at 5 years of age btw, conquered cities and murdered 800 Jewish men and boys from Arabia (the Banu Qurayza)by making them dig their own graves before slitting their throats. Some of the boys would have been barely over 10.....what a man of peace that the Muslims aspire to follow. Wait a minute...l hear the usual left wing objections in the mail ''B-b-but what about the Old Testament???'' Yeah because the iron age myths and legends of nomadic lsraelite tribes holds a candle to the medieval and more historical Mohammed... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. I'm not sure about the last 17 years but for 2017 the numbers I've found at the moment are: 200 recorded Islamic attacks in 30 countries, in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured. As opposed to one Christian attack in one country in which six people have been killed and eight injured. " 200 recorded islamic terrorist attacks in the last month alone? Really? Where you getting that number from? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. I'm not sure about the last 17 years but for 2017 the numbers I've found at the moment are: 200 recorded Islamic attacks in 30 countries, in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured. As opposed to one Christian attack in one country in which six people have been killed and eight injured. 200 recorded islamic terrorist attacks in the last month alone? Really? Where you getting that number from? -Matt" You don't hear about them. Almost everyday in lsrael there is an attack. lf it was no the news, there would be no time to report any other news. ''In 2016, 12 vehicular ramming attacks and 100 stabbing attacks were thwarted by security forces. Since 13 September 2015, 46 people have been killed in terrorist attacks and 649 people (including 4 Palestinians) injured. There have been 169 stabbing attacks and 104 attempted stabbings; 128 shootings; 54 vehicular (ramming) attacks; and one vehicle (bus) bombing'' http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Wave-of-terror-October-2015.aspx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face facts for a minute... You're probably 10,000 - 50,000 - 100,000 times more likely to get shot dead by an American in the great US of A than by any Islamic terrorist. If Trump really wanted to make Americans safer he needs to make Americans safer from Americans and ban peoples "right to bare fucking machine guns - assault rifles & fucking rocket launchers" Until this is done anything else is just hypocritical bollocks. " The Orlando gunman was ''American''. As were the Boston bombers. So yes you are right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face facts for a minute... You're probably 10,000 - 50,000 - 100,000 times more likely to get shot dead by an American in the great US of A than by any Islamic terrorist. If Trump really wanted to make Americans safer he needs to make Americans safer from Americans and ban peoples "right to bare fucking machine guns - assault rifles & fucking rocket launchers" Until this is done anything else is just hypocritical bollocks. " so hand guns are okay | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lets face facts for a minute... You're probably 10,000 - 50,000 - 100,000 times more likely to get shot dead by an American in the great US of A than by any Islamic terrorist. If Trump really wanted to make Americans safer he needs to make Americans safer from Americans and ban peoples "right to bare fucking machine guns - assault rifles & fucking rocket launchers" Until this is done anything else is just hypocritical bollocks. " That will never change.Americans are a fearful people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. I'm not sure about the last 17 years but for 2017 the numbers I've found at the moment are: 200 recorded Islamic attacks in 30 countries, in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured. As opposed to one Christian attack in one country in which six people have been killed and eight injured. 200 recorded islamic terrorist attacks in the last month alone? Really? Where you getting that number from? -Matt You don't hear about them. Almost everyday in lsrael there is an attack. lf it was no the news, there would be no time to report any other news. ''In 2016, 12 vehicular ramming attacks and 100 stabbing attacks were thwarted by security forces. Since 13 September 2015, 46 people have been killed in terrorist attacks and 649 people (including 4 Palestinians) injured. There have been 169 stabbing attacks and 104 attempted stabbings; 128 shootings; 54 vehicular (ramming) attacks; and one vehicle (bus) bombing'' http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Wave-of-terror-October-2015.aspx" OK, sure, I can quote random facts about different topics to you too, but what about the 200 recorded islamic attacks in 30 countries in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured in January 2017? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 200 recorded islamic terrorist attacks in the last month alone? Really? Where you getting that number from? -Matt" Sorry, my mistake...it's now 203 reported Islamic attacks in 30 countries, in which 1417 people have been killed and 1692 injured. Today's unsuccessful murder attempt by the Muslim machete-wielding,"'Allah Akbar"-shouting psycho in Paris isn't included. And sorry, but no change in the Christian murder stats as far as I'm aware. Maybe you can find some? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. I'm not sure about the last 17 years but for 2017 the numbers I've found at the moment are: 200 recorded Islamic attacks in 30 countries, in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured. As opposed to one Christian attack in one country in which six people have been killed and eight injured. 200 recorded islamic terrorist attacks in the last month alone? Really? Where you getting that number from? -Matt You don't hear about them. Almost everyday in lsrael there is an attack. lf it was no the news, there would be no time to report any other news. ''In 2016, 12 vehicular ramming attacks and 100 stabbing attacks were thwarted by security forces. Since 13 September 2015, 46 people have been killed in terrorist attacks and 649 people (including 4 Palestinians) injured. There have been 169 stabbing attacks and 104 attempted stabbings; 128 shootings; 54 vehicular (ramming) attacks; and one vehicle (bus) bombing'' http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Wave-of-terror-October-2015.aspx OK, sure, I can quote random facts about different topics to you too, but what about the 200 recorded islamic attacks in 30 countries in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured in January 2017? -Matt" l wasn't referring to the facts that guy claimed. lf you include the massacring of the Yazidis, Christians and other Muslims it would be in the hundreds of thousands. lf you take into account the size of lsrael. lt's like the size Wales, those number are massive for that. lt's totally plausible. Here is the wikipedia page for Terror attacks of 2017 (the vast majority by Muslims as listed). Scrolling down the list, all top 10 by fatality count is by lslam, all over 30 people dead until you hit 10th place on this list. You do the arithmetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 No doubt you will deny these though. Wouldn't want to be seen as racist now. lt's all our fault of course. lf only we never went to lraq in 2003!!! There wouldn't be a single attack would there?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ...Here is the wikipedia page for Terror attacks of 2017 (the vast majority by Muslims as listed). Scrolling down the list, all top 10 by fatality count is by lslam, all over 30 people dead until you hit 10th place on this list. You do the arithmetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 No doubt you will deny these though. Wouldn't want to be seen as racist now. lt's all our fault of course. lf only we never went to lraq in 2003!!! There wouldn't be a single attack would there??" Come on Kid...play the game...a VERY inconvenient truth for the PC islamophiles. And someone has already forgotten that the year kicked off with a spectacular slaughter in a Turkish night club with a mere 39 dead and 69 wounded. Never mind...all part of the new 'normal'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the last 17 years how many people have been killed by christian extremists and how many by Muslim extremists? I should google it but just thort I would ask. I'm not sure about the last 17 years but for 2017 the numbers I've found at the moment are: 200 recorded Islamic attacks in 30 countries, in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured. As opposed to one Christian attack in one country in which six people have been killed and eight injured. 200 recorded islamic terrorist attacks in the last month alone? Really? Where you getting that number from? -Matt You don't hear about them. Almost everyday in lsrael there is an attack. lf it was no the news, there would be no time to report any other news. ''In 2016, 12 vehicular ramming attacks and 100 stabbing attacks were thwarted by security forces. Since 13 September 2015, 46 people have been killed in terrorist attacks and 649 people (including 4 Palestinians) injured. There have been 169 stabbing attacks and 104 attempted stabbings; 128 shootings; 54 vehicular (ramming) attacks; and one vehicle (bus) bombing'' http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Wave-of-terror-October-2015.aspx OK, sure, I can quote random facts about different topics to you too, but what about the 200 recorded islamic attacks in 30 countries in which 1400 people have been killed and 1659 injured in January 2017? -Matt l wasn't referring to the facts that guy claimed. lf you include the massacring of the Yazidis, Christians and other Muslims it would be in the hundreds of thousands. lf you take into account the size of lsrael. lt's like the size Wales, those number are massive for that. lt's totally plausible. Here is the wikipedia page for Terror attacks of 2017 (the vast majority by Muslims as listed). Scrolling down the list, all top 10 by fatality count is by lslam, all over 30 people dead until you hit 10th place on this list. You do the arithmetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017 No doubt you will deny these though. Wouldn't want to be seen as racist now. lt's all our fault of course. lf only we never went to lraq in 2003!!! There wouldn't be a single attack would there??" Yeah, I did the arithmetic. It totals about 400 people dead. So under a third of claimed. And that is all incidents listed there, not just 'islamic' ones. And that is even when you are counting civil wars as 'terrorist attacks' (which is most of them listed). Yes, civil wars are bad. But do you know what my chances of being killed are by the Iraqi civil war? Very fucking little... know why? Because I'm not in fucking Iraq. But if you want to go down that route... how many Christians have been shot by other Christians in the USA last year? No, no, they live in the USA, so they must be Christians right? They are Christian atrocities right? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
