re: Once AGAIN, the coward Muslim scum was KNOWN about before hand

quote:

---

Common damn sense dude. Surely you realize that someone that openly advocates blowing up kids is "radical," no?

---

The problem with this is -- common sense can NOT be the rule, unless it is law.

Common sense to me and you (conservative minded folks, and what I assume, both of us Trump voters) is totally different common sense from the likes of Al Franken, Sen. James Brown Waters, schumer, and Pocahantes. I don't want to take a chance of any of those MFers telling me what is common sense.

That isn't being naive and obtuse. That is being realistic. You can't have "common sense" running the country, because there are too many people that don't have enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot.

quote:

---

So as a starter we can toughen up citizenship standards to ensure that naturalized citizens are DEMONSTRABLY completely assimilated into the traditional American culture. Naturalized citizenship should be conditioned on continued DEMONSTRABLE assimilation into traditional American culture for at least 20 years. That would include how they raise their children.

We should NOT allow foreigners to become and remain 'citizens' when all they want to do is come to America to fundamentally change its national culture - especially when that change is toward barbarian medieval violent culture. Screw that - we have enough natural born nutcases.

We should only allow naturalized citizens who are of unquestioned character and productivity, totally aligned with American culture

---

This sounds like a truly scary big government homogenization program and something that I really thought a lot the American right actually fear.

When you enter the country, they ask you if you're coming to commit acts of terror or overthrow the government. If you can honestly answer no to both of those, then you should be free to do as you please. The government should not be involved in telling people how to raise their children beyond ensuring the children are free from abuse and neglect.

If adherence to whatever DOJ/State/DHS/CBP officers happen to be calling American culture is essential for the safety and security of the nation, at what point will it become necessary that we start the removal of the types of people who you describe as "natural born nutcases"?

This just isn't how it should work. I'm not a fan of enclaves or ghettos, nor of radical anti-americans/anti-statists, but I don't want the government any more involved in this than it should be. And quite frankly if a bunch of muslims want to all live in Dearborn MI, for some odd reason, well that's their right as Americans.

quote:

---

Protecting our nation from this sort of scourge should take the same course as we do for pandemic disease. Isolate and hold anyone who fits a certain PROFILE - until they are proven to be free of the 'disease' we are trying to prevent importing. Those being detained, preventing entry or freedom of travel, are being denied their constitutional rights because they have not yet been PROVEN to have the disease. Yet that remains the norm for protecting the larger population from an existential threat.

---

Ok... so, for sake of positive minded discussion. Let's take this route. Let's say this works -- we have relaxed civil liberties to the point that we have eradicated Islamic extremism. Okay, so your method worked and we have no more Muslim terrorist.

What next? Do you put that method back in the bottle?

Or do you allow the "powers that be" go on to the next "existential threat"?

Look, I don't disagree with wanting to do something to save lives and eliminate terrorist threats. I'm just not agreeing with the "suspend freedoms just because someone talked to someone or liked a FB post, or read a twitter feed".

Now, if there is evidence of conspiring to commit a crime (terrorism) -- lock their asses up. But I'm not ready to put any law abiding citizen in jail just because their web surfing habits are questionable. If that was the case -- I would be in jail. I've searched for ISIS sites -- not because I am a supporter, but because I travel to the Middle East quite frequently and I want to get any type of advantage I can on identifying a potential threat in my travels. Is it useful, not really... but it makes me feel like I'm doing something.


Now, final thought --

quote:

---

It is the same as saying you could be tied up and forced to watch your wife and children tortured, raped, and dismembered in front of you, yet be totally satisfied with the murderer being set free because of some technical screw-up by a rookie cop = because that is 'what the constitution says.'

---

It is NOTHING the same and you know it. You're equating someone surfing the web or talking with someone else to rape and murder? Dude. Secondly, it appears you are implying that I am "satisfied" with the rape and murder of my family?
That is the same type of hyperbole that the left love to use. It doesn't work.
No, I'm not satisfied with the terrorist attacks. I'm not happy that many of these guys are "known" or "on a list".

Do you recall the Communist List of the 50's/60's? That is my fear these attacks will create. We do not want society moving back into the policy of pointing fingers and arresting 'problems'. This isn't naivety or obtuseness. This is American History that I do not want repeated.

quote:

---

It is NOTHING the same and you know it. You're equating someone surfing the web or talking with someone else to rape and murder?

---

First - let me admit that I was using the most hyperbolic example I could imagine. I knew at the time it was overstating the problem and regretted posting it.

MEA CULPA.

I do believe in the sentiment I was struggling to put into an analogy.

quote:

---

Ok... so, for sake of positive minded discussion. Let's take this route. Let's say this works -- we have relaxed civil liberties to the point that we have eradicated Islamic extremism. Okay, so your method worked and we have no more Muslim terrorist.

What next? Do you put that method back in the bottle?

Or do you allow the "powers that be" go on to the next "existential threat"?

---

Thank you for the polite response and positive question - I have struggled with a definitive answer to that myself - asked of myself many times.

My only response is that the only way to prevent that erosion of our republic is in the quality of the leaders we elect and the oversight the members of congress exercise on the executive.

Our elections have devolved into popularity contests driven by the most base identity politics that can be imagined. I believe the two political parties have led the populace down a wide path to disunity. I believe one of those parties is far more responsible for this dysfunction than the other and their power to disassociate the real issues of an election to the 'flavor of the day' grievances from some identity group has been enhanced by a complicit media and the influence of out-ot-touch celebrities and foreign antagonists.

How we recover from this decline is an open question. If we continue relegating the future of the nation to some notion that nobody can ever be inconvenienced or 'triggered', even mistakenly or accidentally maltreated, then we will be overtake by really dark forces, using this weakness in out society as their entry point.

I think the government has to shrink from its assumed position of provider of all needs, slaking of all desires, protection from all annoyances, suppression of all dissent, or else our republic will be destroy and what succeeds it will be a level of hell we cannot imagine.

quote:

---

My only response is that the only way to prevent that erosion of our republic is in the quality of the leaders we elect and the oversight the members of congress exercise on the executive.

---

I agree with pretty much everything you just posted... but highlighting portion with the quote above because it absolutely explains my strong hesitance to accept a "lock them up" and a "traditional American culture" stance.

Look at the two candidates from this past Presidential election. I am over-joyed with the winner. However, I don't even trust Trump with determining who is a "good citizen" and who is a "bad citizen". One of the fantastic successes of our constitution authors is their foresight that even if the country goes through an 'low quality' administration, the constitution will guide it long enough to allow the next leader bring the country back into recovery.

But, could you imagine the state this country would be in if the people elected someone of the low quality as Hillary Clinton? My god, our society would erode so rapidly that I don't know if it could recover.

No problem. It was just a bunch of white kids. Small price to pay to not offend radical Muslims.

quote:

---

Constitution where I can revoke citizenship based off what I think you might do.

---

Which is exactly why there should be a ban and it should be expanded.

quote:

---

Look at the two candidates from this past Presidential election. I am over-joyed with the winner. However, I don't even trust Trump with determining who is a "good citizen" and who is a "bad citizen". One of the fantastic successes of our constitution authors is their foresight that even if the country goes through an 'low quality' administration, the constitution will guide it long enough to allow the next leader bring the country back into recovery.

---

Total agreement here - I think we were at a very critical point in our history and we were presented with perhaps the two worst candidates to choose from imaginable. The fact that one of the candidates was leagues worse than the other still doesn't alleviate the fact that we were left with a pretty awful person as POTUS.

NOW - I fully support Trump's agenda. I cannot stand his persona nor do I trust his judgement. I think he had a great agenda and produced a cabinet that I believe may be the greatest cabinet of my lifetime. I think they are modeling the agenda that I so fully support.

I do belive Trump has the best interests of the nation at heart. And I can never be convinced that HRC had one care about the interest of the nation. I just believe that Trump is too impulsive, petty, thin-skinned, ignorant, arrogant, and reactive to be given any degree of trust.

LBJ is the evil instigator of our decline - his "great society" initiatives are so dilatory and embedded now that I fear we will never be able to undo the harm he did. Obama further cemented it.

I sincerely pray that Trump will succeed in implementing his original agenda. I flat out disbelieve he was involved in anything nefarious. However I fear that he may have fallen victim to flattery and let his self-aggrandizement lead him to make some hard to justify comments which may come back to haunt him in the court of public opinion - or even perhaps in a legal proceeding. I pray that doesn't happen.

quote:

---

What the frick is "traditional American culture "? Because, as I recall in "traditional American history " we have had the annihilation of Native Americans... slavery, "separate but equal", literally witch trials, and a whole host of society blemishes.

---

Yes - American culture has evolved over time - and in a very SHORT time when you consider how cultures have historically evolved. We have been lighting quick to correct our flaws when compared to the history of the world.

And the great thing about our evolution is that the changes were all BORN IN THE USA. Not one of our advances occurred because we had an influx of foreign invaders demanding instant reformation. Some of those changes were hard fought = Civil War = and some scars from that remain.

quote:

---

Who gets to decide the "yeah, you're traditionally American enough. You're in the club."?

---

Nobody gets to decide that - all I am suggesting is that we don't allow outside actors to come in and start cultural upheaval, making demands that WE change OUR ways to accommodate THEM, instigating riots or practicing terrorism because WE don't knuckle under to THEM.

Again, cultural changes should be born from within - better ways of doing things - better ways of interacting with others - better ways of dealing with nature - all should evolve by relying on the basic good intentions and generous nature of our people. We should never try to 'improve' culture by legislation or fiat. It has to be natural to be genuine and lasting.

quote:

---

you're missing the important fact that the actions you are suggesting are the VERY THINGS that people like Soros want to accomplish-- weaken the constitution. Once our society agrees to a weakened constitution is the very moment the left will change it to fit their agenda.

---

I am as strong a constitutional conservative as you will find anywhere. I want the constitution to be the one thing that we all live by and support with our very lives. I reject the tinkering with 'what the constitution means' that has occurred over the past 60 years to accommodate aggrieved identity groups. We have devolved into a 'constitution' that can be nudged to mean one thing or another depending on what the anointed identity group of the moment happens to 'desire.'

I call bullshite on that = and that is NOT a constitution that can have lasting credibility. That approach will relegate the constitution to just another treatise written by long dead white men with only archival interest to scholars.

I love America and its constitution. I oppose any effort to denigrate either.

quote:

---

Once our society agrees to a weakened constitution is the very moment the left will change it to fit their agenda.

---

This is happening as we speak - and is the source of my angst.

Oh oh. You done it now...