USA Trump on Hillary's bathroom visit

[psalms 91]

I seem to remember Israel building a wall and eventually they were overran, I think it is in Isiah chapter 9

 

[Highlander]

Thinking about the wall and Highlander mentioned Israel having one and it worked, aren't there other countries that have built walls? Or even cities for that matter throughout history?

One of the first to come to mind is the Great Wall of China.

 

[psalms 91]

I seem to remember Israel building a wall and eventually they were overran, I think it is in Isiah chapter 9

Had something about repenting and turning back to God and instead Israel built a wall in defiance trusting in htemselves

 

[visionary]

What is really scary is this is our list of top choices offered us from both parties and neither have what it takes like Bibi.

 

[tango]

Rabble rousing is what is done by George Soros, Barack Obama and other Democrats. That is crossing the line. True that Trump sometimes says some outrageous things. But that is different than saying "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" or "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" or "a woman who claims sexual assault MUST be believed and taken at her word?"

"If you like your plan you can keep your plan" might be a lie but isn't rabble rousing. It's irresponsible at best unless the person speaking it can make that decision (and Mr Obama must have known that the minute one insurance company withdrew one plan that one person liked the howling would start) but can't be considered rabble rousing.

I would safely guess that the vast majority of illegals are NOT coming over in private planes. And tunnels can be blocked. The wall works just fine for Israel and would work just fine for us. The only thing needed to make it work -- is to BUILD IT!

The trouble is that the term "illegal immigrant" covers so many different types of people who only have one thing in common. The Mexican wanting to live in Texas or New Mexico so they can earn more than they could in Mexico is a very different person to the Colombian drug lord or the Al Qaeda member trying to sneak in. The poor man who just wants a better life isn't a threat to anyone; the drug lord and the terrorist will more than likely have the means to enter the country by whatever means it takes. So the wall might keep out Jose the tobacco picker but won't keep out Carlos the drug kingpin or Miguel the gun runner. But hey, keeping Mexican tobacco pickers out of Texas is just as important as keeping Muazzam the Islamic fundamentalist out of DC, right?

Any Muslim who is suspected of terror connections -- or anyone else for that matter -- MUST be tracked ..... unless, of course, you are satisfied with continuing murders of innocent American people by these scumbags. And, to educate you a tad, the Muslim terrorists are comparable to the Nazis -- not Trump or an American government that must keep track of suspected terrorists. Your kind of thinking, my friend, is why we are in such danger in the first place.

You can post without commenting on educating me. I don't need educating just because I disagree with you.

The problem is the "suspected terrorist" bit rather than the "Muslim" bit. If a suspected terrorist is called Mohammed al Bashir or Tonto Kawalski or Bud Schnitzel they need to be watched. Assuming that a Muslim is a terrorist because some Muslims are terrorists makes no more sense than assuming a man is a rapist because some men are rapists.

The Muslim terrorists aren't actually comparable to the Nazis because they don't represent a state government. Tracking a group of people based on nothing more than their religion (which will most likely turn into tracking them based on ethnicity, because young men with brown skin and beards are easier to identify than "Muslims") is far closer to the registration of Jews than what even the most fundamentalist Muslims are doing.

Once again, you are either lying or do not know what you are talking about. Trump said that a TEMPORARY ban on Muslims is needed for those coming from countries where terrorism is sponsored. Are you an idiot for thinking this is not a good idea?

So it's OK for someone to come from Syria as long as they aren't a Muslim? How will anyone tell whether they are a Muslim? Or does it just mean that if you're from Syria and have brown skin and a beard you're barred? Perhaps "travelling while Asian" is the latest crime? Do you really think that a "ban on Muslims" (whether temporary or permanent is irrelevant) will stop the determined terrorist from shaving his beard and claiming to be a Christian? Once again any solution has to focus on figuring who is dangerous rather than assuming that brown skin and a beard equates to danger.

Good point -- but probably unintentionally correct. We've been hitting the gutter for the past 7 years. And now Americans everywhere are demanding that we elect someone who is not afraid to throw strikes.

Unintentionally correct? Gee, thanks for the assumption I'm really totally clueless.

It's good to look for someone who can throw strikes. Someone who only seems to open his mouth to change feet probably isn't that person.

Part of it is for the bombastic impact. I'm willing to accept that as long as he continues saying the right things about how to handle the war against terrorism, how to straighten out the blackhole of Obamakare, get our economy back on track.

Bombastic impact is great up to a point. You don't get to go very far past that point before you look like a nutjob. If you've ever watched the English version of Top Gear and seen Jeremy Clarkson and his antics you'll get the idea of what I'm talking about. If you read his column he's brash, he's abrasive, he's what you might call an equal opportunities bigot in that he apparently hates everybody. If you like that sort of thing he's also intensely funny, but I'd be terrified of giving him any political power just in case some of his wilder ideas did prove to come to pass.

The numbers are not untold. You can factor in the 30% or so of diehard Democrats who would vote for Hitler if he wore the big D. But very few Repubs AND swing voters will support the unelectable, unconvicted criminal named Hillary.

Woah! Republicans wouldn't vote for Hillary? Wow, who would have thought that? Maybe she is unelectable, maybe she isn't. But I'm guessing she's smart enough to not throw however millions of dollars at another presidential campaign unless she thought she at least had a fair crack at it.

Remember that Hillary is NOT electable -- and could even be beaten out by that 74 year-old socialist, Sanders. And now we have one of the few respectable Democrats, Jim Webb, who is threatening to run as a 3rd party candidate solely against Hillary's criminal activity. He is sickened by the fact that his party can do no better than support the candidacy of a lowlife who has engaged in criminal behavior -- and escaped prosecution -- for the past 30 years.

You saying Hillary is not electable is a very different proposition from her actually being unelectable. I sincerely hope she doesn't get the presidency but given she's still in the running it's clear she isn't written off as unelectable yet.

That should certainly disqualify her. So should many other crimes, including what she did with the White House Travel Office, illegal possession of over 900 FBI files, her allowing our embassy personnel in Benghazi to die just to save her and Obama's political careers, etc. Any of these things should have her doing 20-30 in a federal pen.

Well, at least we agree on one or two things. LOL

The trouble is that so many things like that appear to become partisan arguments. If/when Democrats start clamoring for her head to roll then I'd expect something to happen. In the meantime it's not surprising that those on the left rush to protect her from the "Republican machine" that they can claim can't counter her policies so they look to discredit her as a person. And given the masterstroke that Bill Clinton (or his staff) pulled in turning the whole Monica Lewinsky issue into a question of whether or not she did "that" to him in the Oval Office (as opposed to whether he committed perjury in court, which would seem like a far more serious question) the worst that could happen to him could be shrugged off with "so he got it on with a young intern, why is it the nation's business anyway?".

 

[Highlander]

THIS IS PART 1 OF 2 ANSWERS TO TANGO'S POST. TOO MANY CHARACTERS FOR ONE WHOLE POST, SO I HAVE TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO TWO.
PART 1.....

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Rabble rousing is what is done by George Soros, Barack Obama and other Democrats. That is crossing the line. True that Trump sometimes says some outrageous things. But that is different than saying "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" or "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" or "a woman who claims sexual assault MUST be believed and taken at her word?"

TANGO REPLIED:
"If you like your plan you can keep your plan" might be a lie but isn't rabble rousing. It's irresponsible at best unless the person speaking it can make that decision (and Mr Obama must have known that the minute one insurance company withdrew one plan that one person liked the howling would start) but can't be considered rabble rousing.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Simply put, if it rouses the rabble, it is rabble rousing.

***************************************

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
I would safely guess that the vast majority of illegals are NOT coming over in private planes. And tunnels can be blocked. The wall works just fine for Israel and would work just fine for us. The only thing needed to make it work -- is to BUILD IT!

TANGO REPLIED:
The trouble is that the term "illegal immigrant" covers so many different types of people who only have one thing in common. The Mexican wanting to live in Texas or New Mexico so they can earn more than they could in Mexico is a very different person to the Colombian drug lord or the Al Qaeda member trying to sneak in. The poor man who just wants a better life isn't a threat to anyone; the drug lord and the terrorist will more than likely have the means to enter the country by whatever means it takes. So the wall might keep out Jose the tobacco picker but won't keep out Carlos the drug kingpin or Miguel the gun runner. But hey, keeping Mexican tobacco pickers out of Texas is just as important as keeping Muazzam the Islamic fundamentalist out of DC, right?

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
I find it interesting that you have admitted that drug lords AND Al Qaeda are trying to sneak in. But yet you still want to keep our border wide open.

Yes, "illegal immigrant" covers many different types of people. But they all have one thing in common -- the word ILLEGAL. This nation has laws and they must be obeyed. The mexican wanting to live in Texas or New Mexico so they can earn more than they could in Mexico can simply apply to come in the FRONT DOOR in legal fashion. Why do you oppose obeying the law?

Are they different than the Colombian drug lord? Or the Muslim terrorist? Obviously they are -- but their physical appearance basically does NOT differ. They can disguise themselves to look Mexican and make it across the border.

Now, if you are willing to place YOUR life in jeopardy and take a chance that one of them is there to kill you, that is fine with me. But it is NOT fine the the majority of Americans. And yes, Carlos and Miguel will indeed be kept out if we wall up the border. But, until then, there is grave danger because we have ALREADY caught terrorists at our southern border -- something you are apparently trying to ignore. Just as you are trying to ignore the vast potential for additional terrorists to sneak in along with the others.

***************************************

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Any Muslim who is suspected of terror connections -- or anyone else for that matter -- MUST be tracked ..... unless, of course, you are satisfied with continuing murders of innocent American people by these scumbags. And, to educate you a tad, the Muslim terrorists are comparable to the Nazis -- not Trump or an American government that must keep track of suspected terrorists.
Your kind of thinking, my friend, is why we are in such danger in the first place.

TANGO REPLIED:
You can post without commenting on educating me. I don't need educating just because I disagree with you.

The problem is the "suspected terrorist" bit rather than the "Muslim" bit. If a suspected terrorist is called Mohammed al Bashir or Tonto Kawalski or Bud Schnitzel they need to be watched. Assuming that a Muslim is a terrorist because some Muslims are terrorists makes no more sense than assuming a man is a rapist because some men are rapists.

The Muslim terrorists aren't actually comparable to the Nazis because they don't represent a state government. Tracking a group of people based on nothing more than their religion (which will most likely turn into tracking them based on ethnicity, because young men with brown skin and beards are easier to identify than "Muslims") is far closer to the registration of Jews than what even the most fundamentalist Muslims are doing.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Sure I can post to educate you. You need it very badly. And you are NOT disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with truth and reality. Most liberals are allergic to truth and reality in the same way that Bella Legosi was "allergic" to a crucifix.

The Muslim terrorists worship by sharia law. And that essentially IS associated with government. Big government -- which was the Nazi's going wild. You are also being very silly. The only terrorists that are attacking people all over the world ARE Muslims. NOBODY else. The terrorists are not Christians, they are not Jews, they are not Hindus, etc. And here you are doing verbal gymnastics to try and avoid identifying them by acknowledging who they are.

So how would YOU try to track them???

As far as the Jews being registered, they were being systematically exterminated by a very evil force called the Nazis -- and it is a very evil force today (the radical Muslims) who wish to exterminate them again, along with everyone else who refuses to follow their religion.

So I'll leave it to your brilliant analysis to tell us how to try and track these terrorists without recognizing their religion? Bet'cha can't do it.

***************************************

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Once again, you are either lying or do not know what you are talking about. Trump said that a TEMPORARY ban on Muslims is needed for those coming from countries where terrorism is sponsored. Are you an idiot for thinking this is not a good idea?

TANGO REPLIED:
So it's OK for someone to come from Syria as long as they aren't a Muslim? How will anyone tell whether they are a Muslim? Or does it just mean that if you're from Syria and have brown skin and a beard you're barred? Perhaps "travelling while Asian" is the latest crime? Do you really think that a "ban on Muslims" (whether temporary or permanent is irrelevant) will stop the determined terrorist from shaving his beard and claiming to be a Christian? Once again any solution has to focus on figuring who is dangerous rather than assuming that brown skin and a beard equates to danger.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Basically, Tango, it is called a passport. But it is STILL dangerous because passports can be faked. But why do you still insist on allowing terrorists to fly or sail into our country in the manner that you want our borders to remain wide open? As for telling whether or not someone is a Muslim when they come from a Muslim country? That is almost self-explanatory. Simply put a ban on ANYONE traveling from those countries, aside from non-radical American citizens, from entering the USA until we have a better way of determining who is safe and who is a danger to innocent Americans.

***************************************

SEE PART 2

 

[Highlander]

THIS IS PART 2 OF 2 ANSWERS TO TANGO'S POST. TOO MANY CHARACTERS FOR ONE WHOLE POST, SO I HAVE TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO TWO.
PART 2.....

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Good point -- but probably unintentionally correct. We've been hitting the gutter for the past 7 years. And now Americans everywhere are demanding that we elect someone who is not afraid to throw strikes.

TANGO REPLIED:
Unintentionally correct? Gee, thanks for the assumption I'm really totally clueless.
It's good to look for someone who can throw strikes. Someone who only seems to open his mouth to change feet probably isn't that person.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Well, Tango, you do have a habit of leaving a few clues that you ARE clueless. Your attempts at rationalization demonstrate this very well. And it is the same type of rationalization, infesting the white house, that has us in this gravely dangerous mess.

As for opening the mouth to change feet, have you listened to our president lately, or the vice president, or Hillary Clinton, etc???

***************************************

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Part of it is for the bombastic impact. I'm willing to accept that as long as he continues saying the right things about how to handle the war against terrorism, how to straighten out the blackhole of Obamakare, get our economy back on track.

TANGO REPLIED:
Bombastic impact is great up to a point. You don't get to go very far past that point before you look like a nutjob. If you've ever watched the English version of Top Gear and seen Jeremy Clarkson and his antics you'll get the idea of what I'm talking about. If you read his column he's brash, he's abrasive, he's what you might call an equal opportunities bigot in that he apparently hates everybody. If you like that sort of thing he's also intensely funny, but I'd be terrified of giving him any political power just in case some of his wilder ideas did prove to come to pass.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Jeremy Clarkson? Never heard of him. But we can both promise not to vote for him. But Trump is nothing like that. He knows when to rein it in. In fact, I can see that he is gradually changing his public approach to become more and more presidential appearing and toning down his comments somewhat. He will never stop calling a spade a spade, but we don't want him to do that. Strong, point-blank language is what is needed, along with commensurate action.

***************************************

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
The numbers are not untold. You can factor in the 30% or so of diehard Democrats who would vote for Hitler if he wore the big D. But very few Repubs AND swing voters will support the unelectable, unconvicted criminal named Hillary.

TANGO REPLIED:
Woah! Republicans wouldn't vote for Hillary? Wow, who would have thought that? Maybe she is unelectable, maybe she isn't. But I'm guessing she's smart enough to not throw however millions of dollars at another presidential campaign unless she thought she at least had a fair crack at it.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
If she was dumb enough to fancy herself as president 8 years ago, she is still dumb enough today. Just because someone pours millions & millions of dollars into a campaign does not mean they are a cinch to be elected. If you don't believe me, take a trip to Florida and talk to Jeb Bush.

***************************************

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Remember that Hillary is NOT electable -- and could even be beaten out by that 74 year-old socialist, Sanders. And now we have one of the few respectable Democrats, Jim Webb, who is threatening to run as a 3rd party candidate solely against Hillary's criminal activity. He is sickened by the fact that his party can do no better than support the candidacy of a lowlife who has engaged in criminal behavior -- and escaped prosecution -- for the past 30 years.

TANGO REPLIED:
You saying Hillary is not electable is a very different proposition from her actually being unelectable. I sincerely hope she doesn't get the presidency but given she's still in the running it's clear she isn't written off as unelectable yet.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Being "not electable" and being "unelectable" mean exactly the same thing. She will probably NOT convince enough people to vote for her in order to win the electoral college. No means no. LOL

***************************************

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
That should certainly disqualify her. So should many other crimes, including what she did with the White House Travel Office, illegal possession of over 900 FBI files, her allowing our embassy personnel in Benghazi to die just to save her and Obama's political careers, etc. Any of these things should have her doing 20-30 in a federal pen.
Well, at least we agree on one or two things. LOL

TANGO REPLIED:
The trouble is that so many things like that appear to become partisan arguments. If/when Democrats start clamoring for her head to roll then I'd expect something to happen. In the meantime it's not surprising that those on the left rush to protect her from the "Republican machine" that they can claim can't counter her policies so they look to discredit her as a person. And given the masterstroke that Bill Clinton (or his staff) pulled in turning the whole Monica Lewinsky issue into a question of whether or not she did "that" to him in the Oval Office (as opposed to whether he committed perjury in court, which would seem like a far more serious question) the worst that could happen to him could be shrugged off with "so he got it on with a young intern, why is it the nation's business anyway?".

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
You do not understand hardcore Democrats, Tango. They literally WOULD vote for Hitler if he wore the "Big D." That is what I mean when referring to "Dumocrats." They only vote by party, not by the philosophy of the individual candidate. All they do is look for the D and pull the lever. This is probably around 30% of the overall electorate. Then you have the Repubs, who probably represent another 30%. In between you have the swing voters who go either way. They are the ones who typically determine the winner of a national election. And, because of Hillary's lowlife, criminal activity, she is literally loathed by many people -- including most of the swing voters.

I'm looking forward to watching the activities of Jim Webb, one of the few HONORABLE Democrats. He is planning a 3rd party challenge to Hillary and is doing this strictly to provide a loud platform to highlight all of her crimes in and out of office -- because he is sick and tired of seeing his party dominated by communists and criminals. He knows he cannot win, but he can do a lot of extra damage to her by pointing out things that Bernie Sanders is too timid to do.

As for Bill, the "masterstroke" (you chose a great term to apply to Slick Willie) apparently failed to stop his impeachment or from being disbarred. And now his wife has unwittingly, indirectly (and most unintentionally) said that Juanita Brodderick must be believed when she charges that Bill Clinton RAPED her. How did she do this? I'm glad you asked. Hillary recently repeated her previous comment that, in paraphrase, "a woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted MUST be believed."

Are you sure you want to talk any more about "opening a mouth to change feet?" LOL

Take care,
Chuck

 

[tango]

THIS IS PART 1 OF 2 ANSWERS TO TANGO'S POST. TOO MANY CHARACTERS FOR ONE WHOLE POST, SO I HAVE TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO TWO.
PART 1.....

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Rabble rousing is what is done by George Soros, Barack Obama and other Democrats. That is crossing the line. True that Trump sometimes says some outrageous things. But that is different than saying "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" or "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" or "a woman who claims sexual assault MUST be believed and taken at her word?"

TANGO REPLIED:
"If you like your plan you can keep your plan" might be a lie but isn't rabble rousing. It's irresponsible at best unless the person speaking it can make that decision (and Mr Obama must have known that the minute one insurance company withdrew one plan that one person liked the howling would start) but can't be considered rabble rousing.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Simply put, if it rouses the rabble, it is rabble rousing.

Sure, and shouting about building a big wall that will cost untold amounts of money while doing little to nothing to protect against the primary threat is rabble rousing.

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
I would safely guess that the vast majority of illegals are NOT coming over in private planes. And tunnels can be blocked. The wall works just fine for Israel and would work just fine for us. The only thing needed to make it work -- is to BUILD IT!

TANGO REPLIED:
The trouble is that the term "illegal immigrant" covers so many different types of people who only have one thing in common. The Mexican wanting to live in Texas or New Mexico so they can earn more than they could in Mexico is a very different person to the Colombian drug lord or the Al Qaeda member trying to sneak in. The poor man who just wants a better life isn't a threat to anyone; the drug lord and the terrorist will more than likely have the means to enter the country by whatever means it takes. So the wall might keep out Jose the tobacco picker but won't keep out Carlos the drug kingpin or Miguel the gun runner. But hey, keeping Mexican tobacco pickers out of Texas is just as important as keeping Muazzam the Islamic fundamentalist out of DC, right?

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
I find it interesting that you have admitted that drug lords AND Al Qaeda are trying to sneak in. But yet you still want to keep our border wide open.

Yes, "illegal immigrant" covers many different types of people. But they all have one thing in common -- the word ILLEGAL. This nation has laws and they must be obeyed. The mexican wanting to live in Texas or New Mexico so they can earn more than they could in Mexico can simply apply to come in the FRONT DOOR in legal fashion. Why do you oppose obeying the law?

Are they different than the Colombian drug lord? Or the Muslim terrorist? Obviously they are -- but their physical appearance basically does NOT differ. They can disguise themselves to look Mexican and make it across the border.

Now, if you are willing to place YOUR life in jeopardy and take a chance that one of them is there to kill you, that is fine with me. But it is NOT fine the the majority of Americans. And yes, Carlos and Miguel will indeed be kept out if we wall up the border. But, until then, there is grave danger because we have ALREADY caught terrorists at our southern border -- something you are apparently trying to ignore. Just as you are trying to ignore the vast potential for additional terrorists to sneak in along with the others.

If you can avoid putting words in my mouth that would be really helpful here.

I never disputed that drug lords and terrorists will be trying to get in. I don't recall anywhere I said that we should keep the border wide open, I said that a big wall would be ineffective at keeping such people out. There is quite a difference.

You're putting further words in my mouth in implying that I oppose obeying the law. I never said anything of the sort, I simply pointed out that Jose the tobacco picker isn't a threat to the security of the nation while Carlos the drug lord possibly is and Muazzam the terrorist certainly is. Quite how you concluded from those words that I oppose obeying the law is something of a mystery. Perhaps you could address the points I'm actually making instead of knocking down strawmen?

It's all well and good throwing around comments about being willing to put my life in jeopardy but the reality is that the chances of being killed by terrorists is still vanishingly small. Far smaller, in fact, than the chances of being killed in a road traffic accident and yet people get in their cars every day without a second thought. But the minute a bomb goes off somewhere people start howling for Nanny State to Do Something. And, just so you know, I was riding on the London Underground on July 7, 2005 (the day the Underground was bombed) and continued to ride it daily after that. I was on the Underground at the time Jean Charles de Menezes was shot by armed police, and continued to ride it daily after that. So don't think you'll be scoring points by making out that I'm just wanting Someone Else to be in danger, I lived in London through enough bomb scares to be facing a credible threat of terrorism. For good measure I flew from London to Washington in December 2001 and back shortly after the first nutjob tried to blow up his shoes while airborne. I still fly quite willingly - I'm more concerned about the discomfort and annoyance of the security screening than the vanishingly small chance someone will try and blow up the plane I'm on.


(cut due to message length limit)

 

[tango]

(part 2)

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Any Muslim who is suspected of terror connections -- or anyone else for that matter -- MUST be tracked ..... unless, of course, you are satisfied with continuing murders of innocent American people by these scumbags. And, to educate you a tad, the Muslim terrorists are comparable to the Nazis -- not Trump or an American government that must keep track of suspected terrorists.
Your kind of thinking, my friend, is why we are in such danger in the first place.

TANGO REPLIED:
You can post without commenting on educating me. I don't need educating just because I disagree with you.

The problem is the "suspected terrorist" bit rather than the "Muslim" bit. If a suspected terrorist is called Mohammed al Bashir or Tonto Kawalski or Bud Schnitzel they need to be watched. Assuming that a Muslim is a terrorist because some Muslims are terrorists makes no more sense than assuming a man is a rapist because some men are rapists.

The Muslim terrorists aren't actually comparable to the Nazis because they don't represent a state government. Tracking a group of people based on nothing more than their religion (which will most likely turn into tracking them based on ethnicity, because young men with brown skin and beards are easier to identify than "Muslims") is far closer to the registration of Jews than what even the most fundamentalist Muslims are doing.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Sure I can post to educate you. You need it very badly. And you are NOT disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with truth and reality. Most liberals are allergic to truth and reality in the same way that Bella Legosi was "allergic" to a crucifix.

The Muslim terrorists worship by sharia law. And that essentially IS associated with government. Big government -- which was the Nazi's going wild. You are also being very silly. The only terrorists that are attacking people all over the world ARE Muslims. NOBODY else. The terrorists are not Christians, they are not Jews, they are not Hindus, etc. And here you are doing verbal gymnastics to try and avoid identifying them by acknowledging who they are.

So how would YOU try to track them???

As far as the Jews being registered, they were being systematically exterminated by a very evil force called the Nazis -- and it is a very evil force today (the radical Muslims) who wish to exterminate them again, along with everyone else who refuses to follow their religion.

So I'll leave it to your brilliant analysis to tell us how to try and track these terrorists without recognizing their religion? Bet'cha can't do it.

Thanks for insulting my intelligence. I'm so glad that you can educate me, while not posting anything that's of any actual value in doing so.

Pretending that liberals are allergic to truth is a really lame argument. Perhaps you could put forward something useful instead of endlessly making vague criticisms of others. For the record I'm not a liberal, I just see little point engaging someone who can't argue more coherently than "liberals dislike truth".

Do all Muslims worship by sharia law? Do all Muslims expect sharia law to be introduced everywhere they go? Hint: I lived in London for 18 years and lived and worked among quite a lot of Real Muslim People (not the sort you see on TV news shows). They managed to live and work alongside me without cutting my head off, blowing me up or otherwise imposing on me. The biggest imposition any Muslim ever made upon my life was when the team I was working with went for lunch at a place where the norm was to order a load of dishes for sharing, and we made a group decision not to order the pork dish so the Muslim guy didn't have to avoid anything. Quite a far cry from the claims made by some of the news sources, no? When I locked myself out of my house in the cold it was the Muslim couple who invited me in for a hot drink while I waited for my wife to get home. Somehow they managed to avoid beheading me in the process.

If you'd care to address the points I'm actually making you'd perhaps try a different tack. I'm not saying that terrorists aren't Muslims, I'm saying that not all Muslims are terrorists. If you look at who rapes women around the world you'll find that in excess of 99% of them are men yet it's clearly silly to say that all men are rapists. But it's obviously silly to regard all men with suspicion on that basis, just as it's silly to regard all Muslims with suspicion just because a small number of them are terrorists.

HIGHLANDER'S ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Once again, you are either lying or do not know what you are talking about. Trump said that a TEMPORARY ban on Muslims is needed for those coming from countries where terrorism is sponsored. Are you an idiot for thinking this is not a good idea?

TANGO REPLIED:
So it's OK for someone to come from Syria as long as they aren't a Muslim? How will anyone tell whether they are a Muslim? Or does it just mean that if you're from Syria and have brown skin and a beard you're barred? Perhaps "travelling while Asian" is the latest crime? Do you really think that a "ban on Muslims" (whether temporary or permanent is irrelevant) will stop the determined terrorist from shaving his beard and claiming to be a Christian? Once again any solution has to focus on figuring who is dangerous rather than assuming that brown skin and a beard equates to danger.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Basically, Tango, it is called a passport. But it is STILL dangerous because passports can be faked. But why do you still insist on allowing terrorists to fly or sail into our country in the manner that you want our borders to remain wide open? As for telling whether or not someone is a Muslim when they come from a Muslim country? That is almost self-explanatory. Simply put a ban on ANYONE traveling from those countries, aside from non-radical American citizens, from entering the USA until we have a better way of determining who is safe and who is a danger to innocent Americans.

Of course passports can be faked. I see you're still continuing with your strawman argument that misrepresents the points I've been making (hint: I never said we should let terrorists in, my point is that having brown skin and a beard and a name like Muazzam doesn't mean someone is a terrorist). I guess it's easier to knock down a strawman. What difference does it make if someone comes from a Muslim country? Just because someone is called Mohammed and has brown skin and a beard doesn't mean they have any intention to blow things up. If you get too focussed on looking for what people might look like you're more likely to miss Buddy Jackson who has white skin and no beard who looks like your average respectable professional but is really a radicalised Muslim who seeks martyrdom, when perhaps Mohammed with his brown skin hates everything that ISIS stands for and just wants a peaceful vacation with his brother who is studying at Harvard.

Your comment about non-radical American citizens is interesting. How will you tell which American citizens are radical, when about all you've got to go on so far appears to be whether or not someone has brown skin and a beard? How will you spot the next Timothy McVeigh if all you've got to check against is brown skin and a beard?

 

[tango]

(your original quotes removed to meet post length limits)

TANGO REPLIED:
Unintentionally correct? Gee, thanks for the assumption I'm really totally clueless.
It's good to look for someone who can throw strikes. Someone who only seems to open his mouth to change feet probably isn't that person.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Well, Tango, you do have a habit of leaving a few clues that you ARE clueless. Your attempts at rationalization demonstrate this very well. And it is the same type of rationalization, infesting the white house, that has us in this gravely dangerous mess.

As for opening the mouth to change feet, have you listened to our president lately, or the vice president, or Hillary Clinton, etc???

Yay, more personal insults. Seriously, why not quit trying to score cheap jibes off me and, you know, answer some questions instead?

TANGO REPLIED:
Bombastic impact is great up to a point. You don't get to go very far past that point before you look like a nutjob. If you've ever watched the English version of Top Gear and seen Jeremy Clarkson and his antics you'll get the idea of what I'm talking about. If you read his column he's brash, he's abrasive, he's what you might call an equal opportunities bigot in that he apparently hates everybody. If you like that sort of thing he's also intensely funny, but I'd be terrified of giving him any political power just in case some of his wilder ideas did prove to come to pass.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Jeremy Clarkson? Never heard of him. But we can both promise not to vote for him. But Trump is nothing like that. He knows when to rein it in. In fact, I can see that he is gradually changing his public approach to become more and more presidential appearing and toning down his comments somewhat. He will never stop calling a spade a spade, but we don't want him to do that. Strong, point-blank language is what is needed, along with commensurate action.

I'm not sure so Trump does know when to rein it in, he's said a lot of things that seem like little more than silly posturing to me. But then I stopped listening to him a while back when it seemed like he didn't have much to say that was useful.

TANGO REPLIED:
Woah! Republicans wouldn't vote for Hillary? Wow, who would have thought that? Maybe she is unelectable, maybe she isn't. But I'm guessing she's smart enough to not throw however millions of dollars at another presidential campaign unless she thought she at least had a fair crack at it.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
If she was dumb enough to fancy herself as president 8 years ago, she is still dumb enough today. Just because someone pours millions & millions of dollars into a campaign does not mean they are a cinch to be elected. If you don't believe me, take a trip to Florida and talk to Jeb Bush.

I never said she was a cinch to be elected, you're misrepresenting my position yet again. There's a big difference between "I think I've got a fair crack at this" and "I'm a cinch to be elected". The 2008 Democratic primaries where she lost to Obama prove that pretty well. Obviously this time around she still thinks she's got enough of a chance to go for it. Jeb Bush and his electability or otherwise have nothing to do with it.

TANGO REPLIED:
You saying Hillary is not electable is a very different proposition from her actually being unelectable. I sincerely hope she doesn't get the presidency but given she's still in the running it's clear she isn't written off as unelectable yet.

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
Being "not electable" and being "unelectable" mean exactly the same thing. She will probably NOT convince enough people to vote for her in order to win the electoral college. No means no. LOL

Maybe she will, maybe she won't. But you saying she's unelectable and her being unelectable aren't one and the same thing. Frankly someone with your posting style saying someone is unelectable means very little as far as I'm concerned. Whether we use the term "unelectable" or "not electable" is irrelevant, if she can gather enough support among the electorate then she's electable. I imagine many Democrat voters out there are saying that Trump is unelectable, which also means nothing.

TANGO REPLIED:
The trouble is that so many things like that appear to become partisan arguments. If/when Democrats start clamoring for her head to roll then I'd expect something to happen. In the meantime it's not surprising that those on the left rush to protect her from the "Republican machine" that they can claim can't counter her policies so they look to discredit her as a person. And given the masterstroke that Bill Clinton (or his staff) pulled in turning the whole Monica Lewinsky issue into a question of whether or not she did "that" to him in the Oval Office (as opposed to whether he committed perjury in court, which would seem like a far more serious question) the worst that could happen to him could be shrugged off with "so he got it on with a young intern, why is it the nation's business anyway?".

MY REPLY 1/3/16:
You do not understand hardcore Democrats, Tango. They literally WOULD vote for Hitler if he wore the "Big D." That is what I mean when referring to "Dumocrats." They only vote by party, not by the philosophy of the individual candidate. All they do is look for the D and pull the lever. This is probably around 30% of the overall electorate. Then you have the Repubs, who probably represent another 30%. In between you have the swing voters who go either way. They are the ones who typically determine the winner of a national election. And, because of Hillary's lowlife, criminal activity, she is literally loathed by many people -- including most of the swing voters.

I'm looking forward to watching the activities of Jim Webb, one of the few HONORABLE Democrats. He is planning a 3rd party challenge to Hillary and is doing this strictly to provide a loud platform to highlight all of her crimes in and out of office -- because he is sick and tired of seeing his party dominated by communists and criminals. He knows he cannot win, but he can do a lot of extra damage to her by pointing out things that Bernie Sanders is too timid to do.

As for Bill, the "masterstroke" (you chose a great term to apply to Slick Willie) apparently failed to stop his impeachment or from being disbarred. And now his wife has unwittingly, indirectly (and most unintentionally) said that Juanita Brodderick must be believed when she charges that Bill Clinton RAPED her. How did she do this? I'm glad you asked. Hillary recently repeated her previous comment that, in paraphrase, "a woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted MUST be believed."

Are you sure you want to talk any more about "opening a mouth to change feet?" LOL

Yawn, yet another assumption that I don't understand something. I've come across tribal voters before, they aren't a peculiarly American phenomenon. There are those who would vote for a turnip if it had the right rosette on it, and they exist on both sides of the political divide. I've met a few on both sides, both here and in the UK. Frankly the fact they have the right to vote is alarming, but then there are lots of things I'd like to see done to validate votes whichever way the person is voting.

I'm well aware that Hillary is widely loathed but from what I can tell she's also widely lauded. How the numbers fall is something we'll have to wait and see. I sincerely hope she doesn't get to be President but it's not down to me.

As I said before I'd like to see Hillary and Jeb disqualified just because of the obvious family connections. The last thing America needs, in my opinion, is the perception that if you've got the right surname you get elected. And sadly whatever the merits or otherwise of Hillary and Jeb as candidates they can't escape the associations their surnames create. Presidential term limits are there for a reason and it seems pretty pointless having term limits if you can have multiple immediate relatives lining up for the presidency.

I'd need to see Hillary's quote in context to be honest. On the face of it that sounds like the kind of tubthumping that helps nobody. But if your system here is anything like the system in the UK you may have an established culture that can sometimes act as if a woman was "asking for it" if she behaved in a certain way (like walking down the street wearing a short skirt), and I don't see anything wrong at all with taking claims of sexual assault more seriously than "ah well, she'd been drinking so probably invited the guy in". Striking a balance that treats genuine victims with care and compassion while weeding out the fabricated claims and the allegations driven by someone who woke up and wished she hadn't invited that guy home with her takes more than a soundbite.

Sadly politics these days seems to be little more than who can come up with the best soundbite. On an only marginally related note, one person I know seems to "like" a lot of Facebook posts about promoting gun control while at the same time seems to "like" a lot of posts that boil down to "leave people alone, it's none of your business". Some day maybe I'll get the chance to ask her how she reconciles the two.

Anyway, we've gone way off the topic of Hillary's visit to the bathroom. If there's so much negative stuff on Hillary I'd have thought Trump would have focussed on that rather than fussing over how long it took her to empty her bladder and making somewhat distasteful comments about her getting "schlonged" by Obama.

 

[Highlander]

Well, it is impossible to put in what God left out.

Trying to educate and upgrade a liberal mindset -- on a repeating basis -- is pointless. It is a good reminder of an old saying, in paraphrase: "When the donkey dies, it is time to dismount."

 

[Lamb]

I was trained on another site to encourage members to address the topic and not the members. I'd really like it if you all would consider taking that to heart so I don't have to close the thread for flaming. Thank you!

 

[tango]

Well, it is impossible to put in what God left out.

Trying to educate and upgrade a liberal mindset -- on a repeating basis -- is pointless. It is a good reminder of an old saying, in paraphrase: "When the donkey dies, it is time to dismount."

Just to kinda-sorta-echo what Lammchen said. Would you care to make any comment about the merits or otherwise of my points, rather than making more thinly veiled comments about my personal intelligence? You know, address the post and not the poster and all that.