No comment

Have a terrorism problem? Easy solution, increase background checks.

Never mind that not one of these shootings would have been caught by the expanded background checks being proposed. Not one. The key to expansion of control and government is the idea that it's OK to curtail everyone's rights or raid their pocketbooks for billions as long as there is ANY chance that XYZ new law will EVER do any good.

Let's not focus on how we can track these people with a minimum of invasion of the privacy of others, or even if we need to revisit that need, and actually target the BAD GUYS. No, let's pass laws to increase the burden on everyone who obeys the laws.

As for that burden not being bad, that assumption underlies that you believe government will keep its word. They'll never come to collect those guns they register, they'll never ask for another even higher standard for gun control when this step proves fruitless.

That's the sucker play of this deal. Pass a law they KNOW will do nothing, b/c it's a stepping stone to the NEXT law on their list when the murders continue and they say we need to do even more. That lets them keep using the problem to pursue their largely separate agenda, and get closer and closer to the making the 2nd Amendment meaningless.

That's why we oppose these steps. They won't work to reduce these events, but they will work to slowly and inexorably move the gun control debate to more and more control that goes beyond simple background checks.

we have native born Americans now embracing these lunatics, turning their baby's nursery into a bomb making facility, and the best the Left and Obama can do is call for background checks on private gun transfers. Really?

Well it worked so well in France, where guns are largely illegal.

The visa for the wife to be should never have been granted per some reports.

Citizen, once again youn ailed it. And the shame is so many are either blind, total allegiance to the liberal democrat agenda, or too stupid to see what is happening right in front of them.

Take my second right freedom, as a law abiding citizen. Tax the hell out of me. Lie to me saying they will protect me. Twist policy around to make it look great on paper all the while knowing it is a lie.

I don't trust our government any longer, and I pay way more attention to what they are doing now than ever before. Wake up now free, or wake up shortly and realize what you helped them accomplish. People say it can't happen, well it can and its on its way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

The visa for the wife to be should never have been granted per some reports.

---

Instead of tougher background checks on American citizens wishing to defend themselves, how about tougher background checks on foreign nationals coming from countries chocked full of radicals who have declared war on the US?

Apparently we didn't even verify her home address on the application.

but we wouldn't want to profile anyone, so instead let's create a permanent paper trail of that family shotgun that you got from your grandfather.

Jazy, the firearms ban in the UK began with registration. clearly to collect guns you have to know where they are to collect, esp. with 300 million of them in the US.

Confiscation in the UK began with registration. The first law was the Pistols Act of 1903, which much like our current laws forbade selling of handguns to minors and felons, very reasonable. But it also required licenses to buy/own a handgun.

Then in 1920 they expanded licenses to all firearms other than shotguns.

Then in 1953 and 1967 they banned carrying of firearms and licensing of shotguns.

By the time they got to a complete ban they'd already accomplished the key goal: eliminating the belief that a person has the right to defend himself. Licenses were refused like they are in blue counties in California and New York now, where even a threat against one's life can't get you a permit.

By the time we get to the 80s and 90s the UK had everything they needed: 1) a pretty complete list of every gun in the country, and 2) a belief that shooting a burglar in your own home was being a vigilante and that owning a gun was itself a sign of some kind of issue.

They demonized guns and gun ownership and registered every gun. Then it was just a matter of time till they were all confiscated.

Sound crazy? Well our own President has pointed multiple times to the confiscations in the UK and Australia as a model for action in the US, and Diane Feinstein, the senior most elected gun control official, has said if she could she'd round up every gun in the country. The leaders of the anti-gun movement absolutely positively want them to be confiscated and for gun ownership to become a thing of the past in the US.

They want it for various reasons (despite their hypocrisy of Feinstein herself having a carry permit few can get in her state and Obama having 24/7 armed guards the rest of his life), but they want it. Some are sincere, thinking it will lead to less violence and crime. Some just want those of us on the right to have no way to resist government, helps them sleep better at night knowing the state has all the power.

So let's talk about real solutions to the problem, fine. But this constant call to simply expand the tracking of guns when NOT ONE OF THESE SHOOTINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED is nonsense. It's like suggesting we bomb Bora Bora b/c we were just attacked by someone from Pakistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Instead of tougher background checks on American citizens wishing to defend themselves, how about tougher background checks on foreign nationals coming from countries chocked full of radicals who have declared war on the US?

Apparently we didn't even verify her home address on the application.

but we wouldn't want to profile anyone, so instead let's create a permanent paper trail of that family shotgun that you got from your grandfather.

---

The Obama administration is too busy trying to import as many potential democrat votes as possible to bother with trivial matters, such as laws and the safety of our country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Jazy, the firearms ban in the UK began with registration. clearly to collect guns you have to know where they are to collect, esp. with 300 million of them in the US.

Confiscation in the UK began with registration. The first law was the Pistols Act of 1903, which much like our current laws forbade selling of handguns to minors and felons, very reasonable. But it also required licenses to buy/own a handgun.

Then in 1920 they expanded licenses to all firearms other than shotguns.

Then in 1953 and 1967 they banned carrying of firearms and licensing of shotguns.

By the time they got to a complete ban they'd already accomplished the key goal: eliminating the belief that a person has the right to defend himself. Licenses were refused like they are in blue counties in California and New York now, where even a threat against one's life can't get you a permit.

By the time we get to the 80s and 90s the UK had everything they needed: 1) a pretty complete list of every gun in the country, and 2) a belief that shooting a burglar in your own home was being a vigilante and that owning a gun was itself a sign of some kind of issue.

They demonized guns and gun ownership and registered every gun. Then it was just a matter of time till they were all confiscated.

Sound crazy? Well our own President has pointed multiple times to the confiscations in the UK and Australia as a model for action in the US, and Diane Feinstein, the senior most elected gun control official, has said if she could she'd round up every gun in the country. The leaders of the anti-gun movement absolutely positively want them to be confiscated and for gun ownership to become a thing of the past in the US.

They want it for various reasons (despite their hypocrisy of Feinstein herself having a carry permit few can get in her state and Obama having 24/7 armed guards the rest of his life), but they want it. Some are sincere, thinking it will lead to less violence and crime. Some just want those of us on the right to have no way to resist government, helps them sleep better at night knowing the state has all the power.

So let's talk about real solutions to the problem, fine. But this constant call to simply expand the tracking of guns when NOT ONE OF THESE SHOOTINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED is nonsense. It's like suggesting we bomb Bora Bora b/c we were just attacked by someone from Pakistan.

---

Gun confiscation is just a step along the way to communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Instead of tougher background checks on American citizens wishing to defend themselves, how about tougher background checks on foreign nationals coming from countries chocked full of radicals who have declared war on the US?

Apparently we didn't even verify her home address on the application.

but we wouldn't want to profile anyone, so instead let's create a permanent paper trail of that family shotgun that you got from your grandfather.

---

How about not letting anyone in from those countries, sorry but I don't trust any of them

Talked to one of my best friends today, he lives in Paducah. He told me of a fourth grade boy there in schoo who does not speak English, guess his parents are recent to the country. So boy has tutors and special ed and writes everything in his stove language, he is Muslim ax his parents. Mush of what he writes is about killing Christians. Now where does he get that ? Hmmmm

Sometimes I think we have two war fronts, the terrorists Muslims and much of our own government. Cabt trust either.

And yet people who are supposedly intelligent can't see either. Or want this country to be drastically changed and thinking the terrorists will leave them alone. Dumb azz's will be easier to kill. Then they will be like the DC police chief that wants us to protect her

I could have sworn I saw a long post by doc that I agreed with, now don't see it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

The Obama administration is too busy trying to import as many potential democrat votes as possible to bother with trivial matters, such as laws and the safety of our country.

---

That and demonize the right. They are the ones with the war on women, the war on the elderly, the war on the poor.. hell apparently I got a war on with everybody despite never killing anybody but if I were to get an AK47 and some pipe bombs, dress in combat fatigues and run into a building shooting while yelling Allah Akbar, its because I don't like my coworkers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

That and demonize the right. They are the ones with the war on women, the war on the elderly, the war on the poor.. hell apparently I got a war on with everybody despite never killing anybody but if I were to get an AK47 and some pipe bombs, dress in combat fatigues and run into a building shooting while yelling Allah Akbar, its because I don't like my coworkers

---

Or they had the gall to have a "Christmas party" that was offensive to you.

We just had our Phil-Am Christmas party at our church, in the parrish hall. Not that I'm all paranoid and stuff, but I made sure that I was facing the only door being used for ingress/egress to the hall. And I told quite a few that if somebody came in doing crazy stuff to hit the floor and let me take care of the issue. And of course, there were several "good 'ol boys" that go to church with us that told me that they'd back my move, whatever it may be.
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that goes to church prepared for an emergency.

She might have been an operative before coming to US, he was radicalized when he went to get here. She was evidently a plant

His father has been added to the terror watch list.

I realize many are upset with what a Trump has said about not allowing Muslim immigrants "temporarily" but if that was in affect now 14 people would be alive. BO's vetting process is very flawed.

It's going to get worse

I think it's very dangerous to just ban people based on faith. Trump likens it to FDR's encampment of the Japanese and he's right that's the analogy, and that was wrong as well. In fact FDR's was WAY more wrong than what Trump is proposing in hindsight b/c the fear that Japanese loyalty would push many to support the military regime and Emperor proved even more false than what we are seeing today with radical Islam being able to reach into the American Muslim communities.

It would be wise to simply admit that profiling isn't discrimination but just pragmatism. You can't ban all Muslims, but it is fair to say that someone from a nation with ties to these groups would get extra scrutiny, whether registered as Muslim or not. If you're from Pakistan you probably warrant a closer look than if you're a 60 year old from Scotland named McDervish. Just reality of good risk assessment.

But banning an entire faith from coming into the country? that's unprecedented and far overstepping in many ways. It was deeply wrong to round up American citizens and legal immigrants in WWII and put them in camps (esp. since we didn't have any German or Italian camps), and it's wrong to exclude an entire faith now when many of that faith have good reasons for coming here.

BUT we can't give that faith a pass when it clearly warrants extra scrutiny. Raising the bar for people from a given region seems warranted, but Trump once again is overreaching into hubris to exclude people based solely on something like religion. It goes against the whole reason the nation was founded, to avoid that kind of line in the sand.

Citizen, I might be wrong but I dont' think he said the Islam faith but rather Muslims. He also said temporarily. That lady that helped kill 14 last week should never have gotten in based on our precedents, she was never interviewed according to testimony yesterday on the hill even though she was supposed to have been. No head of an agency yesterday could tell committees that they knew anything about her or him for that matter, nor did it seem many protocols were done.

What I think he is saying, until we can figure out what the heck we are doing.which seems no one really knows, anyone that is Muslim does not get admitted. Now, he could have done like you suggest and say anyone from a certain nation. But at least he is offering something which none of the other candidates from either party are doing, all they are doing is the same ole garbage we constantly hear.

What everyone is used to is politicians talking their language, what we hear from Trump is tought NY talk. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jazyd

Citizen, I might be wrong but I dont' think he said the Islam faith but rather Muslims. He also said temporarily. That lady that helped kill 14 last week should never have gotten in based on our precedents, she was never interviewed according to testimony yesterday on the hill even though she was supposed to have been. No head of an agency yesterday could tell committees that they knew anything about her or him for that matter, nor did it seem many protocols were done.

What I think he is saying, until we can figure out what the heck we are doing.which seems no one really knows, anyone that is Muslim does not get admitted. Now, he could have done like you suggest and say anyone from a certain nation. But at least he is offering something which none of the other candidates from either party are doing, all they are doing is the same ole garbage we constantly hear.

What everyone is used to is politicians talking their language, what we hear from Trump is tought NY talk. :)

---

There's no distinction to be made there. Trump knows it, we all know it.

It's not tough NY talk, it's good ole 21st century racist, bigoted talk to purposely prey on people's fears. If you're looking where this "talk" is resonating, it's not centered in NY.

Trump's just trying to make bigotry and racism cool again(although Scalia is giving him a run for his money), or at least allow people not to have to hide it anymore, which is something that I'm completely in favor of too. I like to see the idiots raise their hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

There's no distinction to be made there. Trump knows it, we all know it.

It's not tough NY talk, it's good ole 21st century racist, bigoted talk to purposely prey on people's fears. If you're looking where this "talk" is resonating, it's not centered in NY.

Trump's just trying to make bigotry and racism cool again(although Scalia is giving him a run for his money), or at least allow people not to have to hide it anymore, which is something that I'm completely in favor of too. I like to see the idiots raise their hands.

---

All those Christy Minstrels shows weren't down our way. Racism is as bad there as anywhere.

Is it unacceptable to simply ban everyone of a given faith, even temporarily? Yes. But I'm not sure it's "racism" as much as it is just an overreaction to the threat. Where Trump gets his appeal is he's willing to do SOMETHING that actually may address a problem, even if it's not politically correct, even if it is as that level a racist or discriminatory policy.

The reason that appeals isn't b/c all those people are racists, is that all those people are fed up with politicians who won't do anything for fear of the PC backlash. When trump says we need to stop investigating Scotch Irish grandmothers and focus on people who may really be a threat, yes that's something most people think but dont' dare say, not b/c they are racist but b/c anything that even gives that appearance opens one up to the slur.

It's clear that people coming from these countries and people of Islamic faith are a higher threat risk than other immigrant groups, that's simply the truth of the situation. To the extent he's willing to say that and then suggest answers, where others refuse to state the obvious, he gains support.

That all being said, his approach needs to be changed to a focus on immediate suspension of ALL such visas until we can review the procedures and audit those that are in the pipeline to make sure the work is being properly done. He could even have said we do that for anyone considered a higher risk such as being from a given nation or even a faith, he just made it come out like a ban where he needs to focus on it as legitimate threat assessment where you do more homework on people who are a higher risk.

That's not a great fit with the "American way" of everyone being equal, but there are places where we allow that sort of thing even in the US among citizens, so it's not unprecedented. When assessing risk we have to take a more military approach to the situation, and with limited resources we have to expend them in the way that maximizes our chances of finding the biggest threats.

Had he called on immediate emergency action on the visa program to better assess threats and suspend immigration as needed it would have come off as far less reactionary and even racist. But Trump isn't known for laying things out that way.

The PC people have run amok to the point that they are endangering others. Neighbors feared reporting the terrorists because of potential condemnation from the PC crowd and calls of racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

The PC people have run amok to the point that they are endangering others. Neighbors feared reporting the terrorists because of potential condemnation from the PC crowd and calls of racism.

---

That just makes them idiots. They can call the police or the FBI without any risk of retaliation. It's an irrational fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

All those Christy Minstrels shows weren't down our way. Racism is as bad there as anywhere.

Is it unacceptable to simply ban everyone of a given faith, even temporarily? Yes. But I'm not sure it's "racism" as much as it is just an overreaction to the threat. Where Trump gets his appeal is he's willing to do SOMETHING that actually may address a problem, even if it's not politically correct, even if it is as that level a racist or discriminatory policy.

The reason that appeals isn't b/c all those people are racists, is that all those people are fed up with politicians who won't do anything for fear of the PC backlash. When trump says we need to stop investigating Scotch Irish grandmothers and focus on people who may really be a threat, yes that's something most people think but dont' dare say, not b/c they are racist but b/c anything that even gives that appearance opens one up to the slur.

It's clear that people coming from these countries and people of Islamic faith are a higher threat risk than other immigrant groups, that's simply the truth of the situation. To the extent he's willing to say that and then suggest answers, where others refuse to state the obvious, he gains support.

That all being said, his approach needs to be changed to a focus on immediate suspension of ALL such visas until we can review the procedures and audit those that are in the pipeline to make sure the work is being properly done. He could even have said we do that for anyone considered a higher risk such as being from a given nation or even a faith, he just made it come out like a ban where he needs to focus on it as legitimate threat assessment where you do more homework on people who are a higher risk.

That's not a great fit with the "American way" of everyone being equal, but there are places where we allow that sort of thing even in the US among citizens, so it's not unprecedented. When assessing risk we have to take a more military approach to the situation, and with limited resources we have to expend them in the way that maximizes our chances of finding the biggest threats.

Had he called on immediate emergency action on the visa program to better assess threats and suspend immigration as needed it would have come off as far less reactionary and even racist. But Trump isn't known for laying things out that way.

---

I disagree or need to clarify on all bolded statements.

When I used the term racism with Trump, it wasn't isolated to the proposed banning of Muslims, it was an all encompassing viewpoint and statements that he's made in the past. Racism, in my opinion, is calling white people that commit mass killings, mentally ill and non-whites are terrorists. To me, they're all terrorists and they're all mentally ill. Radicalization is an extreme mental illness. I was also referring to Scalia, who's proving once again that he's a flat out racist.

I don't think most people that are supporting Trump are doing so, and you would have to assume that it's blind support if you aren't considering them racist or bigoted, because they're fed up. I think Trump is playing to people's fears of Islamic extremism. We've never been safer as a country(even though there's more to do), but it's the #1 fear of so many people.

I totally disagree that Muslim's are the higher risk of any immigrant group. There's absolutely no evidence of that. It's a perception, perhaps, but that just can't be supported. The fact of the matter is that immigrants are LESS likely to be criminals than native-born Americans. I go back to my city. It's not the Muslim people that I'm scared of(well, I'm not scared of anybody really), it's the day to day risks that make me nervous. I'm WAY more fearful of a drunk driver, distracted drivers or someone driving at very high speeds.

It's only human nature, though, to be scared of the wrong things.

Darn it, Stu.........just when it looks like you're finally going to get it right, then you suddenly veer left again! Darn it all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

Darn it, Stu.........just when it looks like you're finally going to get it right, then you suddenly veer left again! Darn it all!

---

There's a huge difference between veering right and common sense. I'm a centrist, outside of the bubble. Not libertarian(I do believe that government has a purpose), or not liberal(or at least as defined by those on the right). I debate the other side with my liberal friends and family all of the time.

On social issues, however, I'm extreme to the left, but that's where that ends. Economically, I'm more center, some may say a little right of center. I can find common ground with people like Rubio, Paul and a couple of other people in the Republican party, but I just can't support someone who caters to a fringe that I'm completely 100% opposed to. I can see the difference in needing their support to get elected and pushing their agenda, which is why if that person would be elected, I would get them the respect and support until they don't deserve it, which is a rarity for people in both parties these days.

I never want to be party labeled or affiliated, and I want to always choose the best person that shares my views. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of them, so I have to find the best fit, flaws and all.

I hope you know I was making a joke, even if it was a poor attempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

I hope you know I was making a joke, even if it was a poor attempt.

---

I don't like to miss an opportunity to try to explain that I'm not as crazy as I appear of some may think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

That just makes them idiots. They can call the police or the FBI without any risk of retaliation. It's an irrational fear.

---

Not at all when the AG threatens people with federal charges if the say anything about Muslims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Not at all when the AG threatens people with federal charges if the say anything about Muslims.

---

Makes one really wonder about this administration and where their true loyalty lies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

That just makes them idiots. They can call the police or the FBI without any risk of retaliation. It's an irrational fear.

---

no they can't and Keith pointed that out. The AG will retaliate against them and has said so. They would also risk retaliation from those they accused to the point of killing them, and this couple would have done just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Instead of tougher background checks on American citizens wishing to defend themselves, how about tougher background checks on foreign nationals coming from countries chocked full of radicals who have declared war on the US?

Apparently we didn't even verify her home address on the application.

but we wouldn't want to profile anyone, so instead let's create a permanent paper trail of that family shotgun that you got from your grandfather.

---

Isn't that what Trump really wants, tougher background checks on foreign Muslims until we know for sure who and what they are? Right now we have no control over them coming into this country, zero and Trump knows it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I think it's very dangerous to just ban people based on faith. Trump likens it to FDR's encampment of the Japanese and he's right that's the analogy, and that was wrong as well. In fact FDR's was WAY more wrong than what Trump is proposing in hindsight b/c the fear that Japanese loyalty would push many to support the military regime and Emperor proved even more false than what we are seeing today with radical Islam being able to reach into the American Muslim communities.

It would be wise to simply admit that profiling isn't discrimination but just pragmatism. You can't ban all Muslims, but it is fair to say that someone from a nation with ties to these groups would get extra scrutiny, whether registered as Muslim or not. If you're from Pakistan you probably warrant a closer look than if you're a 60 year old from Scotland named McDervish. Just reality of good risk assessment.

But banning an entire faith from coming into the country? that's unprecedented and far overstepping in many ways. It was deeply wrong to round up American citizens and legal immigrants in WWII and put them in camps (esp. since we didn't have any German or Italian camps), and it's wrong to exclude an entire faith now when many of that faith have good reasons for coming here.

BUT we can't give that faith a pass when it clearly warrants extra scrutiny. Raising the bar for people from a given region seems warranted, but Trump once again is overreaching into hubris to exclude people based solely on something like religion. It goes against the whole reason the nation was founded, to avoid that kind of line in the sand.

---

Citizen, we know for a fact that two of the terrorists in France came in as refugees. We know for a fact ISIS has said they are/will plant operatives/terrorists into the refugee system, we know for a fact that Somalia refugees in Detroit have returned to the middle east to fight for ISIS and AQ, we know for a fact this female in San Bernadino was never questioned, interviewed and she was a radical and possible plant before she came here, we know for a fact that two men from the middle east who made IED's there came to Bowling Green Ky and resumed making IED's here and thankfully were arrested before they could do anything. We know for a fact that 70% of the so called Syrian refugees are male..which is odd when you think about it...throw in the FBI is watching about 1000 Islamics iphere tied to terrorism

We know that the president of the USA is sworn to protect his citizens against all enemies of the country.

So are you willing to bet your families lives by allowing unknown muslim refugees into this country knowing that our process of so called vetting them is a farce? I am not willing to allow that to my family

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

Not at all when the AG threatens people with federal charges if the say anything about Muslims.

---

That's not a reality. How does a call to your local law enforcement lead to violence? Can you cite an example where this has occurred?

I stand by my statement that if anybody is in fear of retaliation by making a simple phone call, it's irrational, fear based, unrealistic and idiotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

That's not a reality. How does a call to your local law enforcement lead to violence? Can you cite an example where this has occurred?

I stand by my statement that if anybody is in fear of retaliation by making a simple phone call, it's irrational, fear based, unrealistic and idiotic.

---

Then WHY did she say that, and if that's not what she meant, then why has she not sought to clarify her meaning? She meant exactly what she said. After all, she only answers directly to the POTUS, and he clearly stated in his book, if he has to choose between America or the Muslims he will choose to side with the Muslims, every time.
The meaning is crystal clear to me. It's a direct threat against Americans who do not care for this Muslim ideology and the threat it poses to our national security.
America & Americans are the enemy of this administration. They say it to us every day. Many of us here have that much figured out. Others here........not so much.

We are way too Muslim friendly in much the same way Ashcroft et al were focused on covering the breasts of statues while muslims learned to fly airliners. Time to quit fiddlin while Rome burns

Feds need a big enema followed by priority based belt tightening

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

Then WHY did she say that, and if that's not what she meant, then why has she not sought to clarify her meaning? She meant exactly what she said. After all, she only answers directly to the POTUS, and he clearly stated in his book, if he has to choose between America or the Muslims he will choose to side with the Muslims, every time.
The meaning is crystal clear to me. It's a direct threat against Americans who do not care for this Muslim ideology and the threat it poses to our national security.
America & Americans are the enemy of this administration. They say it to us every day. Many of us here have that much figured out. Others here........not so much.

---

What did she say, exactly, for you to make such an inference?

Please point out where Obama said this in his book?

You realize that there are many Muslim Americans that deserve all the same rights that you and I do?

You may disagree with Obama's approach towards fighting ISIS(although, it's very similar to many of the Republican proposals minus a tweak or two), but to insinuate that he sides with the enemy more than America is flat out insane. It's warped. There's just no evidence to validate it. It's a fear mentality.

Trump's rhetoric is way more comforting to ISIS than anything that Obama has done. At least Obama's approach is killing terrorists, while Trump is doing whatever he can to help them recruit.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that a good portion(not a majority) of this nation wants an all-out religious war, where it's not a fight against extremism. When you see polls that say that people are accepting of American on American crime and gun violence, but want to ban all Muslims, it's hard not to come with that belief.

I'd like for people to start telling me that is NOT the case.

Stu, I don't know if it will help (and I have to say re Obama he's the first President I really think does have a split loyalty b/c he is an apologist for America and doesn't see it as that shining beacon on the hill), but the issue of American on American crime versus terrorism isn't about racism, it's about basic psychology.

People need to feel safe, and they will tend to rationalize and evaluate threats based on their own sense of personal safety. So when they see a report of crime what they want most is to feel that it doesn't impact them or pose a threat to themselves or their family.

So if it's some shooting in some bad neighborhood but they don't live there they say it's not a threat to them b/c they don't live there, or if it's a gang shooting they say it's OK b/c they aren't in a gang. Those crimes aren't a threat to them.

What scares people aren't the everyday crimes, b/c those crimes have a reason, a connection, and if they aren't in those groups they feel unaffected. What scares people is RANDOM crime, where they feel they have no control and it could happen to them at any time no matter what neighborhood they live in or what activities they avoid. So random shootings, terrorism, drunk drivers, those things scare people a lot more than a report of a gang war in some area they don't intend to visit.

Statistically far more people died from everyday crime in that same day than the 14 killed in San Bernadino, but those others don't scare people like some lunatic out to just kill anyone.

It's not personal, or racism, it's simply the need for people to mentally distance themselves from threats. They can't distance themselves from terrorism the way they can some shooting over a drug deal gone bad.

Which of course is what "terrorism" is all about, and why it is effective far beyond its actual physical impact. It doesn't work by killing enough people, it works by scaring enough people into thinking they may be killed.

1)The current AG of the USA, Loretta Lynch who said that she would prosecute anyone for hate speech towards Muslims. Strange though, she didn't say that about Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Hindus, or any other religious denominations.......just that she intends to protect Muslims. Sorry, but if I as a Roman Catholic can't get any protection from religious persecution, then the Muslims shouldn't either. At this point, my rights as an American under the Constitution are being violated.......by the very person who is in charge of protecting MY RIGHT as an American citizen.
2)In his book, "Dreams of My Father". Don't remember which chapter it was. I'm sure your copy will be more readily available than mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suncat05

1)The current AG of the USA, Loretta Lynch who said that she would prosecute anyone for hate speech towards Muslims. Strange though, she didn't say that about Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Hindus, or any other religious denominations.......just that she intends to protect Muslims. Sorry, but if I as a Roman Catholic can't get any protection from religious persecution, then the Muslims shouldn't either. At this point, my rights as an American under the Constitution are being violated.......by the very person who is in charge of protecting MY RIGHT as an American citizen.
2)In his book, "Dreams of My Father". Don't remember which chapter it was. I'm sure your copy will be more readily available than mine.

---

That's not what she said and it's not what he said.

I didn't think you had any proof.


Here is her quote on the subject, "We always have a concern when we see the rhetoric rising against any group in America, that it might inspire others to violent action, and that violent action is what we have to deal with". That was a clarification of the "edge of violence" comment that I believe that you and others are trying to relate to the topic at hand, that if you are to call the police to you're at risk to prosecution. That's about as far as a stretch that you can make. She also went on to say, ""Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words". My source for all of these quotes is Newsmax.

I believe the "any group in America" is inclusive to Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Hindus and so on as you pointed out of her failing not to mention, again proving that you are incorrect. Might I add to, that her original comments were made at a Muslim Advocates(we have to remember that Muslims are Americans too) where of course she's going to make a comment directly towards them, and leave it to the right wing to isolate these comments to create a fictional depiction. Then, once she clarifies them, it's too late, you're going to believe what you want.

Facts are optional.

Please feel free to set me straight if these aren't the comments to which you're referring to.

As far as the Obama myth. I have to think that you're relying on the many lies and distortions that have been debunked ad nauseum. I'm pretty sure that you didn't read any of Obama's books, so you must be relying on the filth that people want to make up, and you just keep eating it up, like so many others that fall for it hook, line and sinker.

I don't care when people disagree with politicians, but it's really a shame when people just blindly believe what they read and see. I know it happens on both sides and it's wrong any time it does happen. It's so easy to fact check these days. That's why I asked for your examples. I was able to fact check and come to the conclusion that your conclusions are a lot of BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Stu, I don't know if it will help (and I have to say re Obama he's the first President I really think does have a split loyalty b/c he is an apologist for America and doesn't see it as that shining beacon on the hill), but the issue of American on American crime versus terrorism isn't about racism, it's about basic psychology.

People need to feel safe, and they will tend to rationalize and evaluate threats based on their own sense of personal safety. So when they see a report of crime what they want most is to feel that it doesn't impact them or pose a threat to themselves or their family.

So if it's some shooting in some bad neighborhood but they don't live there they say it's not a threat to them b/c they don't live there, or if it's a gang shooting they say it's OK b/c they aren't in a gang. Those crimes aren't a threat to them.

What scares people aren't the everyday crimes, b/c those crimes have a reason, a connection, and if they aren't in those groups they feel unaffected. What scares people is RANDOM crime, where they feel they have no control and it could happen to them at any time no matter what neighborhood they live in or what activities they avoid. So random shootings, terrorism, drunk drivers, those things scare people a lot more than a report of a gang war in some area they don't intend to visit.

Statistically far more people died from everyday crime in that same day than the 14 killed in San Bernadino, but those others don't scare people like some lunatic out to just kill anyone.

It's not personal, or racism, it's simply the need for people to mentally distance themselves from threats. They can't distance themselves from terrorism the way they can some shooting over a drug deal gone bad.

Which of course is what "terrorism" is all about, and why it is effective far beyond its actual physical impact. It doesn't work by killing enough people, it works by scaring enough people into thinking they may be killed.

---

I don't disagree with everything your saying, but I again question the rationality of it. I think everybody needs to question what makes them fearful of something and take personal responsibility for accountability of those fears. Very few people want to do so

The first thing that I set in bold, I feel a little differently. I feel that people prioritize their fears based on their personal values. They are scared of the unknown. They are scared of people that are not like them. The anti-Muslim rhetoric has spiked since San Bernadino, but it didn't with the Planned Parenthood killings, the Oregon shootings, Charleston, Newtown, Sandy Hook, and on and on, and you have to ask why?

All of these killers were "radicalized", at least in my view, but it's the Muslim killers that have "everybody" scared.

It IS personal, racism and bigotry(among other emotions) that are factoring in how people are mentally distancing themselves from threats. What else can it be? If people can't rationally assess risk of threats to their safety it's coming from some other emotion. As I've said several times, there are WAY more things that pose a risk to our safety than radical Islam. If we're talking about radical religion, "radical" Christianity is just a greater threat domestically. To me, though, it should never be a religious conversation.

It may not be known to each person individually, but they are acting in racist, bigoted ways. It's reminds me of sitting around with my sister-in-law, who isn't racist, but made a statement about a girl in her class feeling very down about herself that she wasn't pretty like all of the other girls, and as she's telling us the story, she tells us that the girls was "pretty for a black girl". She's made statements like that quite a bit over the years, but once she realized that it's actual hurtful to people and is racist, she's changed her ways.

Of course it's not rational. In the 1970s polls indicated people thought New York had ten times the crime rate it actually had due to all the crime dramas based in New York showing crime.

No doubt part of being threatened by any group that can be readily identified by some criteria will lead to issues with that group, but it's not inherently racism. In this case it's not race anyway, it's religious discrimination by and large since we're talking about multiple ethnic groups (though I know most Americans don't know there are multiple ethnicities in the Middle East) across the Muslim world. In WWII slurs like "kraut" were used despite Germans having been fully integrated into the US for a century.

But that's not the cause, it's the symptom. The cause is feeling threatened, and people feel threatened b/c terrorism is random and is focused on bringing the threat to random innocent people going about their lives, and that's exactly why it works.

No it's not rational, but it works. The chances of being killed by a terrorist are nearly nil compared with all the ways to die in a given day, but people perceive it to be a threat that needs to be addressed. We are at war, people expect us to take that level of action.

But that's not inherently racist. It's a simple truth that the highest risk group for terrorism are Muslims and it's not close, so they bear the most scrutiny.

The emotion it comes from is fear. Fear creates racism, not the other way around.

As for "radical Christianity" being a greater threat, that's a joke and a half. In 20 years in this country organized Christian religion will be in tatters thanks to the increasingly agnostic social mores of the country and the onslaught of reverse discrimination that is driving traditional faith out of every aspect of our daily lives unless you go out of your way to find it.

And btw I don't consider myself to be particularly religious. I am however particularly observant and particularly good at spotting double standards.

Stu, try watching some national news. The video clip showed Lynch saying if people said anything about the Muslims they would be prosecuted.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/704897