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

[Ender]

You did not clarify anything. I posted Rand's policies off his Senate website and direct quotes from him. All you did was change the aspect of the topic to distort my position which is all you seem to do in this forum.

Also, I never posted anything that would violate the 1st amendment. You continue to misrepresent everything that was posted to bury the facts in this thread with nonsense. You are spamming since your whole game here is to promote Muslim immigration at all costs and thwart Constitutional law enforcement to police terrorist threats in the Muslim community.

I would say that you are talking about YOURSELF.

This thread has never been about open borders or about Muslim immigration; it is about surveillance of AMERICAN CITIZENS because of their religion. This is what I and many others on this thread are concerned about and have tried to help you understand.

The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make NO LAW concerning religion. Of course now we have Fed agencies that make their own laws w/o the consent of Congress or the people.

THIS is the problem with Newt's wannabe policies.
THIS is one of the main reasons many left Britain so they could practice their religion w/o fear.

This policy is very dangerous and NOT just to Muslims but to all religions.

As I have said several times:
The Irish were enslaved and tortured in America because they were dirty Catholics.
The Mormons were killed in many places- you could still legally kill a Mormon in Missouri until 1970.
The Jews who came to the US for safety were denied entrance and sent back to Germany.

THIS IS THE DANGER WE FACE FOR ALL RELIGIONS WITH NEWT'S PROPOSAL.

Muslim fear is being pushed right now so that religion can be brought under the Fed. Soon, anything that is not The Religion of the State will be unacceptable.

THIS is what this thread has been about for many of us- NOT Muslim immigration- that's a different subject altogether.

 

[kahless]

What part of the following has given you pause?

Your reply now and then were are out of context to my replies and misses some of my key replies or posts. You chimed into my back and forth with 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.

More hyperbole. We have not lost freedom of religion. Again you and several others are giving aid and comfort to those here and those that wish to come here that desire to eliminate individual liberty.

If you have a group of people publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology, the right thing to do is surveillance and if here on visa round them up and send them back.

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.

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.

So Rand hates Muslims to now to.

"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/

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

 

[LibertyEagle]

I would say that you are talking about YOURSELF.

This thread has never been about open borders or about Muslim immigration; it is about surveillance of AMERICAN CITIZENS because of their religion. This is what I and many others on this thread are concerned about and have tried to help you understand.

The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make NO LAW concerning religion. Of course now we have Fed agencies that make their own laws w/o the consent of Congress or the people.

THIS is the problem with Newt's wannabe policies.
THIS is one of the main reasons many left Britain so they could practice their religion w/o fear.

This policy is very dangerous and NOT just to Muslims but to all religions.

As I have said several times:
The Irish were enslaved and tortured in America because they were dirty Catholics.
The Mormons were killed in many places- you could still legally kill a Mormon in Missouri until 1970.
The Jews who came to the US for safety were denied entrance and sent back to Germany.

Yes, because a high proportion of Jews were Communists and Americans did not want Communism here.

THIS IS THE DANGER WE FACE FOR ALL RELIGIONS WITH NEWT'S PROPOSAL.

Muslim fear is being pushed right now so that religion can be brought under the Fed. Soon, anything that is not The Religion of the State will be unacceptable.

THIS is what this thread has been about for many of us- NOT Muslim immigration- that's a different subject altogether.

This country was founded for Christians, by Christians who wanted the freedom to practice their own flavor of Christianity and not be ruled by the Church of England.

 

[tod evans]

Your reply now and then were are out of context to my replies and misses some of my key replies or posts. You chimed into my back and forth with ender.

Of course did, I'm not going to be quiet when somebody calls for a larger or more powerful federal government.

Enough is enough!

I could care less if you're scared of Muslims or anybody else, government isn't how grown men deal with fear.

 

[kahless]

I would say that you are talking about YOURSELF.

This thread has never been about open borders or about Muslim immigration; it is about surveillance of AMERICAN CITIZENS because of their religion.

"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. -- Rand Paul

THIS is what this thread has been about for many of us- NOT Muslim immigration- that's a different subject altogether.

The discussion encompassed, Muslim citizens, visa holders and incoming immigrants. All fair game which you took part in that conversation to the point of being hell bent on having no immigration controls or surveillance of Muslims.

 

[CPUd]

 

[kahless]

Of course did, I'm not going to be quiet when somebody calls for a larger or more powerful federal government.

Enough is enough!

I could care less if you're scared of Muslims or anybody else, government isn't how grown men deal with fear.

No one called for a larger more powerful federal government. That is all in your head. What is evident however is that you are calling for an end of Constitutional surveillance supported by Rand of Muslims whom are a risk within our borders whether citizens or visa holders.

 

[nikcers]

No one called for a larger more powerful federal government. That is all in your head. What is evident however is that you are calling for an end of Constitutional surveillance supported by Rand of those whom are a risk within our borders whether citizens or visa holders.

Every time the government does something it is considered force or power. So what you just did was accuse him of lying about this plan, when it wouldn't be a lie. This plan requires the government to do something. This is why you don't understand non interventionism.

 

[tod evans]

No one called for a larger more powerful federal government. That is all in your head. What is evident however is that you are calling for an end of Constitutional surveillance supported by Rand of those whom are a risk within our borders whether citizens or visa holders.

You're severely mistaken when you utter "Constitutional surveillance-within our borders".

There is no such thing but what was twisted into effect by politicians.

If you want Muslims out then kick 'em out, don't cry for government to do it for you.

If you don't want Muslims coming in by the plane load then rip the power to import them from governments greedy paws.

The same government you would call to monitor these people is bringing them in by boat/plane and train, they're paying them tax dollars to live here and you're arguing that government isn't doing enough......

I'm arguing that government has done too much it's time to shut it down.

The same beast you would have protect you will fucking eat you on the turn of chance........

 

[Ender]

"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. -- Rand Paul



The discussion encompassed, Muslim citizens, visa holders and incoming immigrants. All fair game which you took part in that conversation to the point of being hell bent on having no immigration controls or surveillance of Muslims.

MY conversation has always been about Muslim Americans. YOUR conversation has always been to alter and/or misconvey other people's words.

 

[kahless]

You're severely mistaken when you utter "Constitutional surveillance-within our borders".

There is no such thing but what was twisted into effect by politicians.

If you want Muslims out then kick 'em out, don't cry for government to do it for you.

If you don't want Muslims coming in by the plane load then rip the power to import them from governments greedy paws.

The same government you would call to monitor these people is bringing them in by boat/plane and train, they're paying them tax dollars to live here and you're arguing that government isn't doing enough......

I'm arguing that government has done too much it's time to shut it down.

The same beast you would have protect you will fucking eat you on the turn of chance........

You see that makes it much easier to understand where you are coming from and why we disagree. I am not an anarchist and believe the US has a right to exist including having a limited federal government as a necessary tool for such things as defending our borders so we can strive to have individual liberty within. Do I prefer states rights over federal of course.

We were however discussing what aspects are Constitutional on this subject and what Rand Paul proposes. So I am looking at it from a position of the current political reality where as you are looking at it from a point of view that none of it should exist in the first place - shut it down.

 

[tod evans]

You see that makes it much easier to understand where you are coming from and why we disagree. I am not an anarchist and believe the US has a right to exist including having a limited federal government as a necessary tool for such things as defending our borders so we can strive to have individual liberty within. Do I prefer states rights over federal of course.

We were however discussing what aspects are Constitutional on this subject and what Rand Paul proposes. So I am looking at it from a position of the current political reality where as you are looking at it from a point of view that none of it should exist in the first place - shut it down.

Now I'm an "anarchist"

I suppose if labeling me helps you square not handling your Muslim issue yourself everything is hokey...

 

[kahless]

Now I'm an "anarchist"

I suppose if labeling me helps you square not handling your Muslim issue yourself everything is hokey...

Lets see:

- you objected to warrant based Constitutional surveillance of Muslims who are a risk. Including opposing surveillance of those publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology.

- you objected to simply stating what is and is not Constitutional. The discussion of the Constitution seems to anger you.

- you objected to any and all immigration controls therefore supporting the free flow of Muslims across our borders. This included my posts that stated Muslims overwhelming support Sharia over individual liberty and that allowing them to be a majority in any geo-political district in US they would implement Sharia.

- you objected to my replies that posted Rand's statement on 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." -- Rand Paul

- Lastly you believe the entire federal government should be shut down.

If you are not a Sharia supporting Muslim, I thought maybe an Anarchist would explain your behavior. If not then, what gives?

 

[tod evans]

Lets see:

- you objected to warrant based Constitutional surveillance of Muslims who are a risk. Including opposing surveillance of those publicly demanding violent overthrow of our government to replace it with a more repressive ideology.

- you objected to simply stating what is and is not Constitutional. The discussion of the Constitution seems to anger you.

- you objected to any and all immigration controls therefore supporting the free flow of Muslims across our borders. This included my posts that stated Muslims overwhelming support Sharia over individual liberty and that allowing them to be a majority in any geo-political district in US they would implement Sharia.

- you objected to my replies that posted Rand's statement on 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." -- Rand Paul

- Lastly you believe the entire federal government should be shut down.

If you are not a Sharia supporting Muslim, I thought maybe an Anarchist would explain your behavior. If not then, what gives?

Instead of copy-n-pasting over and over I'll just suggest that you try reading and comprehending what I've typed...

Your impressions of what I've typed are um.........interesting.

I'll leave you to continue trying to justify crying to government for protection from boogeymen...

 

[kahless]

Instead of copy-n-pasting over and over I'll just suggest that you try reading and comprehending what I've typed...

Your impressions of what I've typed are um.........interesting.

I'll leave you to continue trying to justify crying to government for protection from boogeymen...

You start off by sounding like I am misunderstanding what you are posting but then in the very last sentence you confirm what I posted. You believe the federal government should not exist, nor the Constitution and therefore people including Muslims should freely enter the region that is the US. Then if I have a problem with Muslims that want to kill me I should arm myself against them and fight my own battles. Got it.

 

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[Smitty]

I'm just for deporting them. If they're Muslim they've already failed the test.

 

[tod evans]

You start off by sounding like I am misunderstanding what you are posting but then in the very last sentence you confirm what I posted. You believe the federal government should not exist, nor the Constitution and therefore people including Muslims should freely enter the region that is the US. Then if I have a problem with Muslims that want to kill me I should arm myself against them and fight my own battles. Got it.

Thanks once again for interpreting what I've written!

Why do I bother typing when you'll explain what I really mean later?

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

No, what tod is saying is that he and his folk should actually be the ones to do something about it if they thought the situation warranted action (whatever that action might be) - as opposed to sitting around and whining about how the Feds need to abuse the power they already have (or, even worse, be given yet more power to abuse). He's saying that a bunch of vicious, power-mad assholes in Washington D.C. (or wherever else) don't have any goddam business dictating to Ozarkians what or whom they should or should not permit or tolerate.

(tod can correct me if I am wrong ...)

You're severely mistaken when you utter "Constitutional surveillance-within our borders".

There is no such thing but what was twisted into effect by politicians.

If you want Muslims out then kick 'em out, don't cry for government to do it for you.

If you don't want Muslims coming in by the plane load then rip the power to import them from governments greedy paws.

The same government you would call to monitor these people is bringing them in by boat/plane and train, they're paying them tax dollars to live here and you're arguing that government isn't doing enough......

I'm arguing that government has done too much it's time to shut it down.

The same beast you would have protect you will fucking eat you on the turn of chance........

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

Though kahless has seen fit to suggest that tod is an "anarchist" (horrors!! ) I see nothing inherently anarchistic in what he has said - and I am an anarchist. People like to talk a lot about "the country" or "our country" or "my country" - but for the life of me I do not understand why I am expected to believe, for example, that Floridians should be allowed to have jack shit to say about what Idahoans do or don't do (or how they do or don't do it). Thank you very much, Florida, but Idahoans are perfectly capable of figuring things out for themselves (and whether they do it via some "state" or not is irrelevant to this). And the same goes for Floridians vis-a-vis Idaho. And Texans vis-a-vis Missouri. And Californians vis-a-vis Delaware. And etc., etc., etc. ...

And if that is "anarchism," then anything short the globalist wet dream of "one world government" is "anarchism" ...

 

[kahless]

[MENTION=3352]kahless[/MENTION] Look, thread title: [h=1]After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to ‘test’ every Muslim in the U.S. and deport sharia believers[/h]

The two of you are so hypocritical. You always deviate threads off topic and Ender was rattling on about Middle East intervention in this same thread. So don't blame me if the thread not only discussed Muslim citizens but rather visa holders and incoming immigrants.

Gingrich's conversation actually did cover all these points so it is fair game. He also followed up with a FB video to combat the media interpretation of his statements that touched on these aspects.