Donald Trump should be commended for his Muslim Ban.

[dialamah]

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

So who has the higher moral ground? The US policeman who handcuffs this wild child in a tantrum, or the Muslim teacher who puts her over a chair and uses a strap on her bottom until she stops acting out?

 

Neither of them.  

And in Islam, a teacher who puts a child over a chair and uses a strap on her bottom would be breaking Islamic rules about the proper way to physically discipline a kid.   I would hope that equally the policeman in this video would be considered breaking secular law.    

Quote

or the Muslim teacher who puts her over a chair and uses a strap on her bottom until she stops acting out?

This is amusing, as I distinctly remember many conservative types becoming outraged when the Gov't said "no more corporal punishment for kids".     You can even read about it here in this thread http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/9352-senate-spanking-is-child-abuse/

But I guess that now Muslims are known to believe in corporal punishments, Conservatives will become more progressive and declare spanking 'barbaric'.

Check this site for more info on Islamic rules on physical disciplining of kids.   Summary:  hitting allowed only on hands, legs and shoulders, can't hit too hard, can't use an implement, can't discipline in front of others, don't discipline in anger and try other methods first.   

 

 

[Omni]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Possibly. But Malaysia and Indonesia are not on the list either. The argument is, though, that the Americans rely on the Saudis to screen out terrorist wannabees, and that they have close communications with the Saudis in terms of who the extremists are, whereas the US has no such relationship with the government of Somalia (such as it is) and doesn't trust the one in Iran. As for Iraq, Iran and Yemen, half those countries aren't even controlled by the official governments, so how much do they know about these people?

Apparently the Saudis "screening" process didn't work so well leading up to 9-11. You know, those people who actually did attack America.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, kactus said:

You obviously didn't pay attention to my post and decided to go ahead with making comparisons despite telling you for once not to....Do not expect a response....

Ahhh, context, the enemy of the progressive.  No, no, no! Don't put things into perspective! Allow me me my sanctimonious condemnation of the West! It's what I long for!

And btw, nice touch there of responding and saying I shouldn't expect a response. LOL! Couldn't be more inane! 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

Neither of them.  

And in Islam, a teacher who puts a child over a chair and uses a strap on her bottom would be breaking Islamic rules about the proper way to physically discipline a kid.

Oh? How does Islam instruct people to beat children? I vaguely recall a court ruling from one of the gulf states last year saying that you could beat women and children as long as you didn't hit the face, and didn't use too big a stick. Perhaps you could enlighten us on the specifics.

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

 

  I would hope that equally the policeman in this video would be considered breaking secular law.  

What law was he breaking? An out-of-control child kicking, biting and punching needs to be restrained. 

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

But I guess that now Muslims are known to believe in corporal punishments, Conservatives will become more progressive and declare spanking 'barbaric'.

Merely providing context for you progressives so aghast that the girl was non-violently restrained, when in every Muslim country she would have been beaten. And Muslim law extends to adults, which is why adults suffer corporal punishment for their crimes, from whipping to caning to having hands and feet and ultimately heads removed.

 

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Omni said:

Apparently the Saudis "screening" process didn't work so well leading up to 9-11. You know, those people who actually did attack America.

The screening of 2017 is somewhat different than what existed in 2001. 

[dialamah]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

The screening of 2017 is somewhat different than what existed in 2001. 

What is the screening, exactly, and how does it differ from 2001?   

[cannuck]

On 1/29/2017 at 8:55 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

President Trump is not responsible for the "human rights" of all people in the world.  He is responsible for security of U.S. borders.

I also commend President Trump for following through on his campaign rhetoric, and urge him to ignore peanut gallery voices who have no say in the matter of U.S. border security, especially those from a nation that gave us Ahmed Ressam (Millennium Bomber).

Absolutely agree with this.

[kactus]

Shocking...

this officer is talking about her ordeal in Syria and how the US was complicit in funding the terrorists...

Most importantly, however, is her introduction of the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act,” which she presented last Thursday. In her presentation of the bill, Gabbard cited prominent publications such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to show that the rebels the U.S. is supporting in Syria are aligned with al-Nusra (which is essentially al-Qaeda in Syria).

Another proof that the US has been funding the ISIS to prolong the war in Syria:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/tulsi-gabbard-lead-syria/#

 

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by kactus

[Hal 9000]

On 2017-02-03 at 7:59 PM, Omni said:

Apparently the Saudis "screening" process didn't work so well leading up to 9-11. You know, those people who actually did attack America.

Just a quick question; should we consider Saudi Arabia a muslim country?

[kimmy]

9 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Just a quick question; should we consider Saudi Arabia a muslim country?

uhhhhh srsly?

 -k

[Hal 9000]

5 minutes ago, kimmy said:

uhhhhh srsly?

 -k

Yes, it's a serious question!

[kimmy]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

Yes, it's a serious question!

No it isn't.

 -k

[kimmy]

This is quite interesting.   There was allegedly a showdown between John Kelly, James Mattis, and Rex Tillerson on one side, and Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller on the other, regarding the travel ban.

DHS did a legal analysis and concluded that permanent residents should receive a waiver on the travel ban.  Bannon overruled that, resulting in chaos at airports and stranded people who couldn't get to their homes and jobs. Later DHS chief John Kelly decided to issue the waiver anyway to end the chaos, but not before Bannon marched into his office and ordered him not to. Kelly replied that he only takes orders from the President. The President never weighed in, the waiver was issued, and a couple of days later the White House confirmed that permanent residents are exempt from the travel ban.

This makes one wonder how much power Bannon has in the current administration.  It had been assumed by many that Trump would be a figurehead while Mike Pence did most of the work, but maybe it's actually Bannon calling the shots.

 -k

[Topaz]

It looks like Trump lost the bid to detain  a travel ban and IF any of those people coming in are silent terrorists u can't blame Trump.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Topaz said:

It looks like Trump lost the bid to detain  a travel ban and IF any of those people coming in are silent terrorists u can't blame Trump.

Any terrorism now will be blamed on Trump supporters trying to make all those who got the ban cancelled look bad.

[BubberMiley]

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Any terrorism now will be blamed on Trump supporters trying to make all those who got the ban cancelled look bad.

Are you being serious or sarcastic?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

Are you being serious or sarcastic?

What would you prefer?  I could use a green arrow or two..

[BubberMiley]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What would you prefer?  I could use a green arrow or two..

I prefer the emojis. The one with the finger on his mouth I think is sarcastic. Mr. Angryface is serious.

[DogOnPorch]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What would you prefer?  I could use a green arrow or two..

http://dandygoat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/saudi_emoji_women.png

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

I prefer the emojis. The one with the finger on his mouth I think is sarcastic. Mr. Angryface is serious.

I think it was mostly sarcastic, with a  "well, that doesn't surprise me" as a possible response if it does happen.

[Boges]

Guess the ban wasn't constitutional after all. Member BC2004 was so adamant. 

Is it not super Ironic for Trump to tell judges they'd see them in court. 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Guess the ban wasn't constitutional after all. Member BC2004 was so adamant. 

Is it not super Ironic for Trump to tell judges they'd see them in court. 

 

It's not over yet...the appellate court only ruled on a narrow issue of the temporary injunction.  

Foreign nationals in other countries do not have a constitutional right to enter the United States.  

Edited February 10, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It's not over yet...the appellate court only ruled on a narrow issue of the temporary injunction.  

Foreign nationals in other countries do not have a constitutional right to enter the United States.  

I'll try not to agree with u too many times (l0l!) but u are right and the fact they use no attack have happen since 9/11... well just wait..Europe have found out, u can't tell a terrorist by looking that them. I don't think the US would have let the Japaneses in  during the WW2. The saying safe than sorry applies here.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Topaz said:

I'll try not to agree with u too many times (l0l!) but u are right and the fact they use no attack have happen since 9/11... well just wait..Europe have found out, u can't tell a terrorist by looking that them. I don't think the US would have let the Japaneses in  during the WW2. The saying safe than sorry applies here.

 

Agreed, as the starting point for this U.S. president and many others as well as the U.S. Congress is that sovereign nations have the right and duty to control their own borders.   Foreign nationals do not have the right to travel to or through the United States.   Control of alien entry is a bedrock concept that so many people wish to ignore because of other SJW and human rights agendas.  

This is true regardless of terrorism or the plight of refugees around the world.  

[Omni]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed, as the starting point for this U.S. president and many others as well as the U.S. Congress is that sovereign nations have the right and duty to control their own borders.   Foreign nationals do not have the right to travel to or through the United States.   Control of alien entry is a bedrock concept that so many people wish to ignore because of other SJW and human rights agendas.  

This is true regardless of terrorism or the plight of refugees around the world.  

Except this ban had nothing to do with controlling borders, it was supposedly an attempt to strengthen national security, and that idea was found to have no merit. Trump picked the wrong countries is what it boils down to. Geography is maybe not his strong suit, along with constitutional issues as well it seems.