Its only OK when a Democrat does it!

[jc456]

so, why are you wanting it?

Wanting what?

what you posted. Didn't you read what you wrote?

Im not sure what part of that you think i want.

The post wasn't about me or my beliefs. Help me out and explain what you meant

well you wrote it, I'd expect that you knew what you wrote.

the only thing i can think of to make sense of your post is that you believe i "want" sharia law.
i'm not sure how you would reach that conclusion, but perhaps i'm not thinking of "want" in the right sense.
I don't "want" to follow sharia law. that's not my faith. i do "want" people free to follow their own faiths.

was that your meaning?

ding ding ding, the point of the discussion you missed I see. but yes you basically stated you were ok with the constitution being affiliated with sharia law.

 

[jc456]

OP warning ......the op is a white supremist anything he says is tainted with that poison and is by definition not credible.

and here is the hate baiter, coming out to play!! hey hate baiter how you doing?

since when is fact "hate baiting"?

what was factual?

 

[jc456]

OP warning ......the op is a white supremist anything he says is tainted with that poison and is by definition not credible.

and here is the hate baiter, coming out to play!! hey hate baiter how you doing?

since when is fact "hate baiting"?

but it makes the wacko feel bad and cry

then don't cry, it's ok and don't feel bad wacko!

 

[ogibillm]

Wanting what?

what you posted. Didn't you read what you wrote?

Im not sure what part of that you think i want.

The post wasn't about me or my beliefs. Help me out and explain what you meant

well you wrote it, I'd expect that you knew what you wrote.

the only thing i can think of to make sense of your post is that you believe i "want" sharia law.
i'm not sure how you would reach that conclusion, but perhaps i'm not thinking of "want" in the right sense.
I don't "want" to follow sharia law. that's not my faith. i do "want" people free to follow their own faiths.

was that your meaning?

ding ding ding, the point of the discussion you missed I see. but yes you basically stated you were ok with the constitution being affiliated with sharia law.

affiliated with? what would that possibly mean?

 

[jc456]

what you posted. Didn't you read what you wrote?

Im not sure what part of that you think i want.

The post wasn't about me or my beliefs. Help me out and explain what you meant

well you wrote it, I'd expect that you knew what you wrote.

the only thing i can think of to make sense of your post is that you believe i "want" sharia law.
i'm not sure how you would reach that conclusion, but perhaps i'm not thinking of "want" in the right sense.
I don't "want" to follow sharia law. that's not my faith. i do "want" people free to follow their own faiths.

was that your meaning?

ding ding ding, the point of the discussion you missed I see. but yes you basically stated you were ok with the constitution being affiliated with sharia law.

affiliated with? what would that possibly mean?

yeah, affiliated. "sharia law is not totally incompatible with our constitution."

 

[jc456]

Trump and the Ministry of Propaganda and all the pants shitters are playing right into the hands of ISIS.

Useful idiots.

Well they never met a crisis they would not overreact to.

They are a bunch of pussies...

says the dumb ass.

 

[ogibillm]

Im not sure what part of that you think i want.

The post wasn't about me or my beliefs. Help me out and explain what you meant

well you wrote it, I'd expect that you knew what you wrote.

the only thing i can think of to make sense of your post is that you believe i "want" sharia law.
i'm not sure how you would reach that conclusion, but perhaps i'm not thinking of "want" in the right sense.
I don't "want" to follow sharia law. that's not my faith. i do "want" people free to follow their own faiths.

was that your meaning?

ding ding ding, the point of the discussion you missed I see. but yes you basically stated you were ok with the constitution being affiliated with sharia law.

affiliated with? what would that possibly mean?

yeah, affiliated. "sharia law is not totally incompatible with our constitution."

that's a statement of fact. it has nothing to do with affiliation.

 

[jc456]

well you wrote it, I'd expect that you knew what you wrote.

the only thing i can think of to make sense of your post is that you believe i "want" sharia law.
i'm not sure how you would reach that conclusion, but perhaps i'm not thinking of "want" in the right sense.
I don't "want" to follow sharia law. that's not my faith. i do "want" people free to follow their own faiths.

was that your meaning?

ding ding ding, the point of the discussion you missed I see. but yes you basically stated you were ok with the constitution being affiliated with sharia law.

affiliated with? what would that possibly mean?

yeah, affiliated. "sharia law is not totally incompatible with our constitution."

that's a statement of fact. it has nothing to do with affiliation.

sure it does, the fact is this is the United States and we follow christian beliefs whether you like it or not. It is not sharia law or close to it. so wrong bucko!

 

[ogibillm]

the only thing i can think of to make sense of your post is that you believe i "want" sharia law.
i'm not sure how you would reach that conclusion, but perhaps i'm not thinking of "want" in the right sense.
I don't "want" to follow sharia law. that's not my faith. i do "want" people free to follow their own faiths.

was that your meaning?

ding ding ding, the point of the discussion you missed I see. but yes you basically stated you were ok with the constitution being affiliated with sharia law.

affiliated with? what would that possibly mean?

yeah, affiliated. "sharia law is not totally incompatible with our constitution."

that's a statement of fact. it has nothing to do with affiliation.

sure it does, the fact is this is the United States and we follow christian beliefs whether you like it or not. It is not sharia law or close to it. so wrong bucko!

so you somehow believe that the constitution of the united states only allows for christian beliefs?
am i understanding you correctly?

 

[jc456]

ding ding ding, the point of the discussion you missed I see. but yes you basically stated you were ok with the constitution being affiliated with sharia law.

affiliated with? what would that possibly mean?

yeah, affiliated. "sharia law is not totally incompatible with our constitution."

that's a statement of fact. it has nothing to do with affiliation.

sure it does, the fact is this is the United States and we follow christian beliefs whether you like it or not. It is not sharia law or close to it. so wrong bucko!

so you somehow believe that the constitution of the united states only allows for christian beliefs?
am i understanding you correctly?

did I say that? Our currency is christian, our laws were made based on christian beliefs, that is my meaning. I'd also say that most governments are based off some religious belief system. You disagree?

 

[ogibillm]

affiliated with? what would that possibly mean?

yeah, affiliated. "sharia law is not totally incompatible with our constitution."

that's a statement of fact. it has nothing to do with affiliation.

sure it does, the fact is this is the United States and we follow christian beliefs whether you like it or not. It is not sharia law or close to it. so wrong bucko!

so you somehow believe that the constitution of the united states only allows for christian beliefs?
am i understanding you correctly?

did I say that? Our currency is christian, our laws were made based on christian beliefs, that is my meaning. I'd also say that most governments are based off some religious belief system. You disagree?

Do i disagree that our currency is christian? Yep. That our laws are based on Christianity? Disagree there too. That most governments are based on religious beliefs... that's a tough one

 

[rdean]

Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Oh and that law there was passed by a DEMOCRAT majority Senate and House AND SIGNED by a DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT!

Like said its OK for a democrat to do it,but its waycist when a Republican says to do it!

Republicans so stupid, they think "Iranian" is a religion.

 

[Slyhunter]

The constitution is for American citizens and American Citizens only.

simply not true...

NO WHERE in the Bill of Rights does it mention you have to be a citizen for the protection and over reach from the gvt.

EVERYONE in this Nation, including foreigners visiting, foreigners working here and illegal immigrants are covered under the bill of rights....

there is NO ARGUMENT you can make to change that...

Founders intent....

false! that's your willful misinterpretation of what you wish was the founders intent.

You think they meant for it to cover everybody in the whole ******* world?

 

[Ame®icano]

Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

Oh and that law there was passed by a DEMOCRAT majority Senate and House AND SIGNED by a DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT!

Like said its OK for a democrat to do it,but its waycist when a Republican says to do it!

Iranians vs. Muslims. Do you see the difference?

The majority of Iranians are Muslim.

But the ban was on Iranians, not on Muslims....surely you can see the difference.

Since most of Iranians are Muslims, the ban was pretty much on Muslims. And all (both) other people of Iranian citizenship.

Let's say we ban stupid from USMB. The ban would be for almost all of lefties and few others that are not. Would you cry that lefties are targeted?

 

[Care4all]

The constitution is for American citizens and American Citizens only.

simply not true...

NO WHERE in the Bill of Rights does it mention you have to be a citizen for the protection and over reach from the gvt.

EVERYONE in this Nation, including foreigners visiting, foreigners working here and illegal immigrants are covered under the bill of rights....

there is NO ARGUMENT you can make to change that...

Founders intent....

false! that's your willful misinterpretation of what you wish was the founders intent.

You think they meant for it to cover everybody in the whole ******* world?

no, you didn't say that, you specifically said the constitution was for citizens only, and you are wrong on that.... the constitution, our rules and regs, our laws apply to anyone in USA jurisdiction....so our laws and constitution applies to foreigners when on our soil, with the exception of alien diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity.

AND, the first amendment keeps our government from making ANY law that establishes or prohibits (in any way), a religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So it seems like they would be restricted in making any law that would prohibit those of the Muslim Religion from entering here...???? But I am not 100% certain....

 

[Slyhunter]

The constitution is for American citizens and American Citizens only.

simply not true...

NO WHERE in the Bill of Rights does it mention you have to be a citizen for the protection and over reach from the gvt.

EVERYONE in this Nation, including foreigners visiting, foreigners working here and illegal immigrants are covered under the bill of rights....

there is NO ARGUMENT you can make to change that...

Founders intent....

false! that's your willful misinterpretation of what you wish was the founders intent.

You think they meant for it to cover everybody in the whole ******* world?

no, you didn't say that, you specifically said the constitution was for citizens only, and you are wrong on that.... the constitution, our rules and regs, our laws apply to anyone in USA jurisdiction....so our laws and constitution applies to foreigners when on our soil, with the exception of alien diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity.

AND, the first amendment keeps our government from making ANY law that establishes or prohibits (in any way), a religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So it seems like they would be restricted in making any law that would prohibit those of the Muslim Religion from entering here...???? But I am not 100% certain....

First off Immigrants who want to come here ARE NOT ON US SOIL YET!!!!!!! So no they don't have any ******* rights. Breaking into our house doesn't give you family or visitor rights it makes you a criminal. Still YOU HAVE NO ******* RIGHTS. You're a criminal Trespassers shall be ******* shot.

 

[Care4all]

simply not true...

NO WHERE in the Bill of Rights does it mention you have to be a citizen for the protection and over reach from the gvt.

EVERYONE in this Nation, including foreigners visiting, foreigners working here and illegal immigrants are covered under the bill of rights....

there is NO ARGUMENT you can make to change that...

Founders intent....

false! that's your willful misinterpretation of what you wish was the founders intent.

You think they meant for it to cover everybody in the whole ******* world?

no, you didn't say that, you specifically said the constitution was for citizens only, and you are wrong on that.... the constitution, our rules and regs, our laws apply to anyone in USA jurisdiction....so our laws and constitution applies to foreigners when on our soil, with the exception of alien diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity.

AND, the first amendment keeps our government from making ANY law that establishes or prohibits (in any way), a religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So it seems like they would be restricted in making any law that would prohibit those of the Muslim Religion from entering here...???? But I am not 100% certain....

First off Immigrants who want to come here ARE NOT ON US SOIL YET!!!!!!! So no they don't have any ******* rights. Breaking into our house doesn't give you family or visitor rights it makes you a criminal. Still YOU HAVE NO ******* RIGHTS. You're a criminal Trespassers shall be ******* shot.

it seems to contradict the spirit of the 1st amendment.... congress shall make NO LAW...... regarding religion, seems like discrimination would also be in play too, want to ban jihadists, or full countries, or people we are at war with... etc etc etc would be ok, but religion....it's like a ban on all Jews in Germany, those inside and out....only here in America...

and banning Muslims from Taiwan or India, as an example, who have nothing at all to do with ISIS for just their religion seems wrong and not in the spirit of the 1st. Like I said, I could be wrong...don't know at this point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Islam is 1 billion people. How many people carried out 9/11?

19 plus some others, possible 100 people, that's a long way from 1 billion, don't you think?

Ignorance? No, ignorance is suggesting the US is at war with the US when the US uses military facilities in many Muslims countries, is allied with various Muslims countries.

Just because YOU WANT war with Islam, can't think why, they're pretty aggressive people to pick on, and there are a lot of them.

How can you be in conflict with Islam but not all Muslims? That's nonsensical!

Okay, the US was at war with Germany, with the German leadership especially. So, who is the leadership of Islam? You tell me, as you're making this claim.

The only part of your...post... that I feel inclined to address is your claims that:

1. "The US is at war with Islam." (at least I THINK that's what you meant...) Never said that, I said we are in conflict with Islam. Huge difference.
2. "I want war with Islam." No, again, never said that. Certain people of the Muslim faith want war with us. Again, huge differnce.

What's the difference between being in conflict with Islam and being at war with Islam then?

First of all, as defined by the Contitution, war can only be declared by congress, as yet they have not even considered such a thing, to the best of my knowledge.
Secondly, just how would a country declare war on a group that is not a soverign state? Really don't know how that could happen...
Third, definitions:
Conflict:
noun
noun: conflict; plural noun: conflicts
ˈkänˌflikt/
a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one.
verb
verb: conflict; 3rd person present: conflicts; past tense: conflicted; past participle: conflicted; gerund or present participle: conflicting
kənˈflikt,ˈkänˌflikt/
be incompatible or at variance; clash.
War:
noun
noun: war; plural noun: wars
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
verb
verb: war; 3rd person present: wars; past tense: warred; past participle: warred; gerund or present participle: warring
engage in a war.

I draw your attention particularily to the red definitions.
Hope this clears things up.

Yeah, the constitution wasn't written for non-traditional warfare. So, people take what they have and do what they want with it. Declaring war is so 20th Century anyway. How often does the US declare war on countries or groups it is fighting? Does that mean it's not war? No.

In the constitutional sense, yes it does, mean it's not a war.

So it's all a matter of semantics? Do both sides have to declare war for it to be a war or just one?

So if one side decided never to declare war, it's not a war? Because Saddam didn't declare war in 2003, does this mean it's not a war?

 

[frigidweirdo]

simply not true...

NO WHERE in the Bill of Rights does it mention you have to be a citizen for the protection and over reach from the gvt.

EVERYONE in this Nation, including foreigners visiting, foreigners working here and illegal immigrants are covered under the bill of rights....

there is NO ARGUMENT you can make to change that...

Founders intent....

false! that's your willful misinterpretation of what you wish was the founders intent.

You think they meant for it to cover everybody in the whole ******* world?

no, you didn't say that, you specifically said the constitution was for citizens only, and you are wrong on that.... the constitution, our rules and regs, our laws apply to anyone in USA jurisdiction....so our laws and constitution applies to foreigners when on our soil, with the exception of alien diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity.

AND, the first amendment keeps our government from making ANY law that establishes or prohibits (in any way), a religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So it seems like they would be restricted in making any law that would prohibit those of the Muslim Religion from entering here...???? But I am not 100% certain....

First off Immigrants who want to come here ARE NOT ON US SOIL YET!!!!!!! So no they don't have any ******* rights. Breaking into our house doesn't give you family or visitor rights it makes you a criminal. Still YOU HAVE NO ******* RIGHTS. You're a criminal Trespassers shall be ******* shot.

Wow, non-Americans have no rights.

Or maybe someone needs to understand the theory of Human Rights AND the US Constitution.

 

[Slyhunter]

Founders intent....

false! that's your willful misinterpretation of what you wish was the founders intent.

You think they meant for it to cover everybody in the whole ******* world?

no, you didn't say that, you specifically said the constitution was for citizens only, and you are wrong on that.... the constitution, our rules and regs, our laws apply to anyone in USA jurisdiction....so our laws and constitution applies to foreigners when on our soil, with the exception of alien diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity.

AND, the first amendment keeps our government from making ANY law that establishes or prohibits (in any way), a religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So it seems like they would be restricted in making any law that would prohibit those of the Muslim Religion from entering here...???? But I am not 100% certain....

First off Immigrants who want to come here ARE NOT ON US SOIL YET!!!!!!! So no they don't have any ******* rights. Breaking into our house doesn't give you family or visitor rights it makes you a criminal. Still YOU HAVE NO ******* RIGHTS. You're a criminal Trespassers shall be ******* shot.

Wow, non-Americans have no rights.

Or maybe someone needs to understand the theory of Human Rights AND the US Constitution.

The constitution is for the country America. It isn't the worlds constitution.