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

[tod evans]

You and others are consistently opposing surveillance of those publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology. There are posts in this thread basically demanding that we allow those same types to come here.

That is not only favoring Sharia it is giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

Well fuck yeah!

If you or anybody else supports government surveillance of anybody within the US borders you're wrong!

I'll back you 100% if you want to get off your ass and run the evil Muslims out of your town/county or state but I'll damn sure fight you tooth-n-nail if you want to excuse or empower government surveillance of anyone, including known "terrorists"...

 

[kahless]

Well fuck yeah!

If you or anybody else supports government surveillance of anybody within the US borders you're wrong!

I'll back you 100% if you want to get off your ass and run the evil Muslims out of your town/county or state but I'll damn sure fight you tooth-n-nail if you want to excuse or empower government surveillance of anyone, including known "terrorists"...

You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot use surveillance against them or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

 

[tod evans]

You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot use surveillance against them or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

I DO NOT support federalized surveillance or federalized equality/tolerance/acceptance in any way shape or form.

Don't even try to twist that into being "un-American" or some such bullshit.

Everything the federal government gets involved in it fucks up, everything!

And you're calling on granting them more authority? Are you fucking nuts?

 

[tod evans]

You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia

No!

I very clearly said;

I'll back you 100% if you want to get off your ass and run the evil Muslims out of your town/county or state but I'll damn sure fight you tooth-n-nail if you want to excuse or empower government surveillance of anyone, including known "terrorists"...

How in the Sam-Hell can you twist that into what you typed?

Stop crying for government to pick up your mantle...

 

[kahless]

I DO NOT support federalized surveillance or federalized equality/tolerance/acceptance in any way shape or form.

Don't even try to twist that into being "un-American" or some such bullshit.

Everything the federal government gets involved in it fucks up, everything!

And you're calling on granting them more authority? Are you fucking nuts?

I used to think people here were like me, Paul supporters against bulk data collection surveillance of American citizens and rather require to the government to use warrants through FISA courts for those deemed a threat. It however looks like we have quite a few here where something more sinister is the belief system.

What you are basically saying is the enemy can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot allow the government to use surveillance against those type or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

 

[tod evans]

I used to think people here were like me, Paul supporters against bulk data collection surveillance of American citizens and rather require to the government to use warrants through FISA courts for those deemed a threat. It however looks like we have quite a few here where something more sinister is the belief system.

What you are basically saying is the enemy can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot allow the government to use surveillance against those type or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

Are you really this dense?

Or is it that you're really that scared of the evil Muslims?

Could it be you've accepted Fed-Gov as your lord and master and prefer to petition it for redress?


I'm refusing to accept Fed-Gov as anything good, I'm advising that people handle such matters as you raise locally.

If the matter is brought to Fed-Gov's attention it should not be to ask permission.

 

[69360]

You and others are consistently opposing surveillance of those publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology. There are posts in this thread basically demanding that we allow those same types to come here.

That is not only favoring Sharia it is giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

Why don't you just admit you hate muslims? It'll be a lot easier from here forward. I won't condemn you for it. It's certainly your right. You can hate anyone you want to. Our government can't.

 

[Pizzo]

We all know that the Fed Gov would only label actual terrorists as such, not people with Gadsden flags or Ron Paul bumper stickers....

 

[phill4paul]

We all know that the Fed Gov would only label actual terrorists as such, not people with Gadsden flags or Ron Paul bumper stickers....

Exactly. I think AF said something to the effect that this whole forum is a thought crime in progress. I don't care to trade freedom, for anyone, for security.

 

[kahless]

You and others are consistently opposing surveillance of those publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology. There are posts in this thread basically demanding that we allow those same types to come here.

That is not only favoring Sharia it is giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

Why don't you just admit you hate muslims? It'll be a lot easier from here forward. I won't condemn you for it. It's certainly your right. You can hate anyone you want to. Our government can't.

So Rand hates Muslims to now to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-pushes-back-on-calls-for-more-surveillance/

"I think surveillance, though, has a fairly low threshold for individuals," Paul said. "Yes we should follow people who are a risk. Should we talk to their neighbors and friends, should we talk to their Imam, sure all of that is legitimate.

[MENTION=12547]tod evans[/MENTION], Rand is as dense as I am I guess.

 

[phill4paul]

So Rand hates Muslims to now.

"I think surveillance, though, has a fairly low threshold for individuals," Paul said. "Yes we should follow people who are a risk. Should we talk to their neighbors and friends, should we talk to their Imam, sure all of that is legitimate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-pushes-back-on-calls-for-more-surveillance/

Christ, you can surely cherry pick. Why didn't you finish out the quote?

"I think surveillance, though, has a fairly low threshold for individuals," Paul said. "Yes we should follow people who are a risk. Should we talk to their neighbors and friends, should we talk to their Imam, sure all of that is legitimate. But should we target mosques and have a database of Muslims - absolutely not."

 

[tod evans]

[MENTION=12547]tod evans[/MENTION], Rand is as dense as I am I guess.

Maybe ask Rand if he approves of Fed-Gov even having the authority to use surveillance within the country's borders.....

 

[LibertyEagle]

You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot use surveillance against them or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

I think maybe you guys are misunderstanding each other. He just doesn't want to empower government to surveil people in the U.S.. I'm not too keen on it either, because you give them an inch and they (the government) take a mile. To me, that's why it's crucial to curtail all Muslim travel, relocation and immigration to the U.S. for at least the time being. In addition to kicking out those here on temporary basis.

 

[kahless]

Maybe ask Rand if he approves of Fed-Gov even having the authority to use surveillance within the country's borders.....

A few posts back.

I think surveillance, though, has a fairly low threshold for individuals," Paul said. "Yes we should follow people who are a risk. Should we talk to their neighbors and friends, should we talk to their Imam, sure all of that is legitimate.

 

[phill4paul]

A few posts back.

kahless must have me blocked so that he doesn't have to respond when I refute him. How convenient. Perhaps someone else would care to clue him in on the entire quote.

"I think surveillance, though, has a fairly low threshold for individuals," Paul said. "Yes we should follow people who are a risk. Should we talk to their neighbors and friends, should we talk to their Imam, sure all of that is legitimate. But should we target mosques and have a database of Muslims - absolutely not."

 

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe ask Rand if he approves of Fed-Gov even having the authority to use surveillance within the country's borders.....

He seems pretty clear here, that he does. At least the way things exist now. I mean, we have a State Department importing and depositing people from other nations into states who never agreed to this. We have a federal government who is encouraging illegal immigration and is busing them far into our country and handing them our money.

"I think surveillance, though, has a fairly low threshold for individuals," Paul said. "Yes we should follow people who are a risk. Should we talk to their neighbors and friends, should we talk to their Imam, sure all of that is legitimate. But should we target mosques and have a database of Muslims - absolutely not."

What's the answer, Tod? I think I do get your point. But, I'm also not too keen to be the first to disarm. Do you know what I mean?

 

[tod evans]

He seems pretty clear here, that he does. At least the way things exist now. I mean, we have a State Department importing and depositing people from other nations into states who never agreed to this. We have a federal government who is encouraging illegal immigration and is busing them far into our country and handing them our money.



What's the answer, Tod? I think I do get your point. But, I'm also not too keen to be the first to disarm. Do you know what I mean?

Then I disagree with Rand.

Fed-Gov cannot be trusted to regulate toilet paper I'll be damned if I trust that group to monitor people for terrorist behavior.

What I support is stripping the authority to prosecute individual citizens from the Fed.

Fed-Gov should never have been permitted authority to force states to employ their ideas of equality and inclusiveness and any federal employee who tries to force a state to act contrary to the will of its people should be subjected to that states laws and punishments.

Fed-Gov must be brought to heal before there's no need for states or state law.

Refer to Ron for better verbiage than I can offer.....

 

[AtlantaIconoclast]

Can someone please clarify for me what belief in Sharia requires? Does it mean one believes that govt should enforce it, OR does it mean one believes in the right of individuals to voluntarily submit themselves to some Islamic authority? I don't see how libertarians could oppose the latter. As long as someone willingly chooses to submit, is there any case for banning Sharia?

And it seems that too often this debate over Sharia gets confused with debates about Muslim immigration. I don't think it is inconsistent to allow voluntary Sharia AND to have a ban on any person whose ideology is antithetical to Western values of tolerance, liberty and secular government (even if those values are under threat from governments here in the West). If we have too liberal of an immigration policy, we will cease to have a nation. We are quickly and irrevocably changing the political culture for the worst by allowing so many third world immigrants to come here.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Then I disagree with Rand.

Fed-Gov cannot be trusted to regulate toilet paper I'll be damned if I trust that group to monitor people for terrorist behavior.

What I support is stripping the authority to prosecute individual citizens from the Fed.

Fed-Gov should never have been permitted authority to force states to employ their ideas of equality and inclusiveness and any federal employee who tries to force a state to act contrary to the will of its people should be subjected to that states laws and punishments.

Fed-Gov must be brought to heal before there's no need for states or state law.

Refer to Ron for better verbiage than I can offer.....

We agree that the fed gov should never have been permitted... But they did. So, x we are here. They have caused this situation and intentionally. Until that is curtailed and the result, cleaned up, I don't exactly feel comfortable closing my eyes and just hoping it all turns out ok. Because they caused the situation so that it wouldn't.

 

[tod evans]

Can someone please clarify for me what belief in Sharia requires? Does it mean one believes that govt should enforce it, OR does it mean one believes in the right of individuals to voluntarily submit themselves to some Islamic authority? I don't see how libertarians could oppose the latter. As long as someone willingly chooses to submit, is there any case for banning Sharia?

I fully support any town/county or even state "banning" race/religion/sexual preference or hair color but I'm dead set against the federal government having that authority or even regulating the states authority to ban...