Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Yes, I know you love to make such claims yet NEVER, EVER, provide support for your positions. Kinda like Trump who also NEVER, EVER, provides support for his positions.However, the questions persist. It is interesting to examine those characteristics in light of Faith's posts and today's USA.Is there a group that believes liberal democracy is obsolete?Is there in effect a one party system in the US where one party has control of the Judiciary, the Executive Branch and the Legislature?Is there someone who claims to be a strong, perhaps even Uuge, leader?Did the government say the plan is to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society?Is the plan to advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies?And finally, is there a leader who has said that the US must strengthen it's military as a way to Make America Great Again?It's true that NewSpeak allows you to redefine words so that good is bad and lies are truth and that there are "alternative facts" yet the questions remain.

You do know that Wahhabism is simply one sect of the Muslim Faith and that even that is not a monolithic position.But it is NOT Islam. Even in the Wahhabi sect it is only an extreme minority that holds the position that anyone who is not a member of the Wahhabi sect is an infidel.Yet even in Trumps utterly stupid order on immigration there were no prohibitions based on someone being a Wahhabi and for a very good reason.That definitively would have been unconstitutional. In the US even Wahhabi's have Freedom of Religion, the Right of Free Association, the Right of Free Speech, the Right to Due Process and Equal Protection under the Law.

But he didn't mention anyone's ability (or "right"). He said: "Beliefs are to be protected and the beliefs we most strongly disagree with deserve our strongest support."It was that sentence that I asked him to defend, not what I thought he probably meant to say (which was pretty much what you thought he probably meant to say). You volunteered to defend what he said, which is why you got the silly answer, because what he said is nonsense. Exactly. So we can amend jar's silky Texan prose into: [i]Beliefs are to be protected and the [right to hold the] beliefs we most strongly disagree with deserve[s] our strongest support.[/i]Are you sure on the last two? Speaking and publishing are actions, so it would depend on your views on free speech. Without such actions, no-one would know what the members of those organizations believed anyway. (Having read on, I see you do support their right to profess their beliefs - your support would mean nothing without this). Well, a bit of nitpicking. I don't know how you're supporting their abilities. Are you giving technical aid which helps their brains believe things? Why aren't you supporting their right or freedom to believe? And the other thing would be, why the strongest support for the right to believe in the things you most disagree with, rather than, say, equal support for the right to any beliefs?Another thing. I've noticed that jar put up an ABE section on the post I was replying to after I'd copied it down. I hadn't read that.People have always been able to believe whatever they want privately, hence the importance of the freedom of the action of expression, which is why I quoted Beatrice Hall on Voltaire above, which jar could have done in the first place.

Yeah, they're delicate little flowers aren't they ;-)It's just the Senate coughing up some weird Senate rule to stifle criticism and debate. Politics in action, in all its admirable glory.

Why me? I'm not the puritan traditionalist that you are.Seriously. I've spent a lot of time in majority Muslim countries, and there are many places that would suite you fine. No fornication, homosexuality, and good old traditional values, as I said.I'm not suggesting that you head for a Wahhabi harem, though. That might be a bit too traditional even for you.

Somebody should call you out for your ad hominem lies.

What lies? Just a good natured suggestion. Have you never been to a Muslim country?

Wow!! Just wow!. The lack of self awareness is just stunning.I hope Faith is trolling us. I have never seen such a fulfillment of Poe's law. It truly is remarkable.

No comment on the topic? Just lies about me personally? Nothing to say about the video I posted perhaps, or any of the other references I gave in that same post? I think you really should go visit that Iraqi town the Marine was talking about. I'm sure you'd enjoy it.

Try some sites or publications that present facts. Remember that he didn't get his judgeship in 1986. Remember why?

Yes. Most Muslims are not members of terrorist organisations, human traffickers or money launderers. Feel free to suggest what you like. But if you were the President of the USA you would face legal challenges should you attempt to issue an Executive Order to this effect. Since most of the people fleeing religious persecution at the hands of ISIS and the like are Muslims I note a tension between your two ideas that would need resolving. I would have thought, for instance, you would argue that Muslim women are oppressed. That's 50% of them right there.I also note that you've completely divorced yourself from the argument at this point.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But the sources you read are right wing propaganda more often than not. When they all come from privileged white men the selection for open mind discussion is negative According to your underinformed opinion, which you are free to say.Enjoy

And yet Senator Tom Udall and Senator Bernie Sanders read the letter without interruption or sanctioning.Sadly that just makes it misogyny to only sanction the woman reading a woman's letter.Pathetic.

I am on the topic. I'm pointing out, in my own sweet way, that you have much more in common with people from the conservative religious cultures that you want to ban from entry than most people in this thread. What lies? You know how to quote, so why not do it? The guy making the video asks the wrong question. He should be asking why, if the Iraqi army had recently invaded America and killed a lot of people, might it be difficult for Iraqi soldiers to walk around an American town freely in the aftermath without being lynched. I have walked around many Arabic towns, surrounded by Muslims, and I'm fine. But, unlike the marines, I was unarmed, and hadn't been involved in killing whole swathes of the local population.As for the main topic, I agree with you on some things. Like, for example, that sovereign governments should be able to deny entry to anyone they want to for whatever reason. However, if members of the population disagree, they've every right to campaign for change. I also think that the argument about Trump's directive being unconstitutional on the freedom of religion basis is probably wrong, but then I'm no expert on American law.I also think his ban is clumsy. I'd be much more interested if he actually did try to do what he said he would while campaigning, and temporarily ban all Muslims, not because I think that's a good idea, but because it would be interesting to see what happened then, constitutionally speaking.If he did try it, it wouldn't last for long, for practical reasons. Remember, America does a hell of a lot of trade with the Muslim world, and Trump knows this, and he will not want to damage the U.S. economy.The rather futile gesture he has made may just be to please his voters, and you should be aware, Faith, that he may not really be interested in doing what you really want, just appearing to do something.

That doesn't make them "entirely blameless", and you don't need to shift from "almost all" to "most". If around 1/3 do believe that ex-Muslims should be put to death, that alone would give any western country reason for heavy vetting on immigration. People can be both oppressors and oppressed. I was suggesting taking in those who don't support the oppressive ideology, rather than importing those who do. I do, despite your efforts to import an ideology that wouldn't allow me to. I'd face legal challenges for having been born in the wrong country to be President, interestingly, considering the 1965 act. (I did grow up partly in the States, and was always aware that I was the only kid in class who didn't qualify for the top job)!And I'm sure that you're right on that. I might stand a good chance in France, though. I think what I started on was the point that the freedom of religion challenge to Trump is weak, but you may well agree with that.I don't know if you got the impression that I was arguing in favour of Trump's directive as a good thing, but I wasn't. I think it's clumsy and stupid, and, as I've just suggested to Faith, possibly just a sop to his supporters.