After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to ‘test’ every Muslim in the U.S. and deport sharia believers

[kahless]

I know what Rand proposed. And I know that YOU don't have an issue with going further. The fact that you don't give a damn about Ron/Rand's opinion about going further, or the liberty position about going further tells me all I need to know. Thanks for the response. That said, you still haven't provided an adequate method of identifying Muslims.

Rand's plan is essentially a ban on Muslims without saying it and you know it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ia-believers&p=6263441&viewfull=1#post6263441

 

[nikcers]

Rand's plan is essentially a ban on Muslims without saying it and you know it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ia-believers&p=6263441&viewfull=1#post6263441

You are seeing what you want to see.

 

[kahless]

YOU were praising Newt and this article & now you dismiss it?

SMDH

Here's a few more links to enjoy. One is Hannity with Gingrich- I'm sure you'll love that.

Your posting more articles about Gingrich's comments are irrelevant. We already know what he said.

You said it was unconstitutional because of what WAPO told you. If they are publicly advocating violent aspects of Sharia and for overthrowing our government, then questioning them is within bounds of the Constitution regardless of what they say or any other Muslim advocacy organization.

 

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[nikcers]

Rand Paul says his plan isn't the same as Trump's and both Ron and Rand condemn Trump for his comments. Ofcourse you know more about it right?

 

[kahless]

No, it is not. And YOU know it. I'm capable of reading the words as he said them. You're now spreading lies about Rand Paul.

If he is banning immigration from countries that are majority Muslim then it is a politically correct way of instituting a Muslim ban without saying it. Problem the best way to go about it without it getting knocked down by people like you so I agree with Rand on the approach. You do that first and then later sneak in a total Muslim ban while no one is paying attention.

 

[Ender]

Rand's plan is essentially a ban on Muslims without saying it and you know it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ia-believers&p=6263441&viewfull=1#post6263441

Rand has suggested a pause in immigration from countries where terrorism seems a threat. He is AGAINST banning people because of religion and NO WHERE has he said that we should be deporting American Muslims or spying on them & testing them.

 

[kahless]

Rand Paul says his plan isn't the same as Trump's and both Ron and Rand condemn Trump for his comments. Ofcourse you know more about it right?

Primary competition comments to building their following and for fund raising. Paul camp political rhetoric. See my last post, not much of a difference.

 

[nikcers]

If he is banning immigration from countries that are majority Muslim then it is a politically correct way of instituting a Muslim ban without saying it. Problem the best way to go about it without it getting knocked down by people like you so I agree with Rand on the approach. You do that first and then later sneak in a total Muslim ban while no one is paying attention.

How about we just stop arming bad people in the middle east and opposition groups and toppling secular dictators and expecting thomas jefferson to rise from the ashes. We can't keep creating terrorism and then complain about Muslims, when most of them don't want anything to do with us.

 

[nikcers]

Primary competition comments to building their following and for fund raising. Paul camp political rhetoric. See my last post, not much of a difference.

Nope he said something yesterday at freedomfest about Trumps comments.

 

[Ender]

Your posting more articles about Gingrich's comments are irrelevant. We already know what he said.

You said it was unconstitutional because of what WAPO told you. If they are publicly advocating violent aspects of Sharia and for overthrowing our government, then questioning them is within bounds of the Constitution regardless of what they say or any other Muslim advocacy organization.

And BTW- I've been saying this is unconstitutional because IT IS. WAPO has nothing to do with it.

 

[Ender]

How about we just stop arming bad people in the middle east and opposition groups and toppling secular dictators and expecting thomas jefferson to rise from the ashes. We can't keep creating terrorism and then complain about Muslims, when most of them don't want anything to do with us.

YA THINK?

 

[kahless]

How about we just stop arming bad people in the middle east and opposition groups and toppling secular dictators and expecting thomas jefferson to rise from the ashes. We can't keep creating terrorism and then complain about Muslims, when most of them don't want anything to do with us.

This keeps coming up in the thread and of course I agree with that but still does not address the ideological problem with Islam-Sharia and immigration.

 

[nikcers]

This keeps coming up in the thread and of course I agree with that but still does not address the ideological problem with Islam-Sharia and immigration.

where are they coming from? The muslims aren't coming from mexico, they are coming from countries that don't exist anymore because of us.

 

[kahless]

where are they coming from? The muslims aren't coming from mexico, they are coming from countries that don't exist anymore because of us.

Earlier in the thread.

People on here want to argue that Muslim hostility towards the American people is due to blowback. I can't say that you're wrong, but it makes no difference.

I don't feel compelled to compromise my safety by allowing a culture which is hell bent on distributing some "blowback" into the U.S.A.

The argument makes no sense.

Man A says: Muslims are hostile to Americans so I don't want them in America.

Man B says: They're only hostile to Americans because of the American government's aggression in the Middle East, so we're obligated to allow them into America.

Man A says: That's about the craziest thing I've ever heard.

 

[kahless]

Nope he said something yesterday at freedomfest about Trumps comments.

Irrelevant. Like I said when you have a plan that bans immigration from countries that are predominantly Muslim than for all intents and purposes it is a ban on Muslims.

All the money and effort is going to Trump at this point and will continue to if he wins in November. The Pauls are doing what they need to do to maintain their relevance and keep their organizations and money flowing. That is catering to that anti-Trump segment with this rhetoric.

 

[nikcers]

Earlier in the thread.

If you are mad at yellow jackets stinging you and your family, is your first inclination to burn your neighbors house down, that's just going to make your neighbors have no where to live, the yellow jackets will just fly away and build a new nest. The yellow jackets will probably stop stinging us so much if we stop swatting their nest and let our neighbor deal with it. Our country is powerful enough to stop a few yellow jackets from coming all the way over to our house from across the street.

 

[CPUd]

 

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[CPUd]