Trump: Block ALL Muslim immigration

[CPUd]

We had a similar prohibition (and still do) about members of the Nazi Party of Germany. Somehow, people were NOT tortured to confess that they were Nazis. So there's a direct, recent historical precedent demonstrating that the slippery slope fallacy is in this case genuinely a fallacy.

The creation of a non-falsifiable hypothesis like you have done in this instance is not a hallmark of honest debate; it is a hallmark of SJW emotionalism, an attempt to bully others to go along with an assertion that doesn't have a solid logical foundation. If it did, there would be no reason to resort to this kind of fearmongering.

There are examples of slippery slope arguments being correct (i.e. acceptance of homosexuality leading to attempts to normalize pedophilia), but in this case you haven't a leg to stand on.

You do realize I'm mostly fucking with you? I don't really care how he plans to build his Muslim detector, I just don't believe there is a place for it here in the US. If they confess voluntarily, fine by them.

 

[timosman]

Does anybody believe the official immigration numbers reflect reality?

 

[thoughtomator]

You do realize I'm mostly fucking with you? I don't really care how he plans to build his Muslim detector, I just don't believe there is a place for it here in the US. If they confess voluntarily, fine by them.

What there's no place for in the US is Islam. Either that, or there's no place in the US for anything but Islam. Pick one, because that's the only choice Islam leaves you.

 

[jmdrake]

What there's no place for in the US is Islam. Either that, or there's no place in the US for anything but Islam. Pick one, because that's the only choice Islam leaves you.

There's no place for abject stupidity either, but you're still here. And as for your childish neg rep for my pointing out that the Torah isn't something most would want to live under either....

 

[staerker]

We had a similar prohibition (and still do) about members of the Nazi Party of Germany. Somehow, people were NOT tortured to confess that they were Nazis. So there's a direct, recent historical precedent demonstrating that the slippery slope fallacy is in this case genuinely a fallacy.

The creation of a non-falsifiable hypothesis like you have done in this instance is not a hallmark of honest debate; it is a hallmark of SJW emotionalism, an attempt to bully others to go along with an assertion that doesn't have a solid logical foundation. If it did, there would be no reason to resort to this kind of fearmongering.

There are examples of slippery slope arguments being correct (i.e. acceptance of homosexuality leading to attempts to normalize pedophilia), but in this case you haven't a leg to stand on.

Gitmo

 

[ChiefJustice]

I agree, keep all muslim immigrants and all illegal immigrants out.

Lol. You are part of the problem. To believe this means you don't give a rats ass about Liberty. You only care about liberty for certain religions and races. Rand should come out and explicitly criticize Trump for what he said. If he doesn't it's a serious mistake. After all he's been willing to attack Trump before, why not now?

 

[erowe1]

Imagine how counterproductive it would have been during the Cold War not to allow people from communist countries to visit America.

 

[erowe1]

What there's no place for in the US is Islam. Either that, or there's no place in the US for anything but Islam. Pick one, because that's the only choice Islam leaves you.

Except you have the fact that the US already has Muslims and non-Muslims in it.

 

[jllundqu]

3 days ago I posited a hypothetical in the Bernadino Shooting thread that if the shooters turned out to be ISIS-related, we might end up with internment camps...

Today I wake up and heat Trump saying "We need to do what FDR did in WWII (Internment camps)."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-defends-muslim-plan-by-comparing-himself-to-fdr/

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump defended his call to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the United States by comparing it to former President Roosevelt's 1942 executive order that authorized the internment of 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent.

SMH

 

[thequietkid10]

Imagine how counterproductive it would have been during the Cold War not to allow people from communist countries to visit America.

I know, what the hell are we doing here? 30 countries? Seriously? I'd be ok with Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria and maybe Indonesia. And that's being generous as we have never been attacked by anyone in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria and Indonesia. Paul isn't saying ban all Muslims but with that many countries on his no go list HE MIGHT AS WELL.

This is the type of crap that is stopping/stopped me from going all in for Paul

 

[kahless]

Rand should come out and explicitly criticize Trump for what he said. If he doesn't it's a serious mistake. After all he's been willing to attack Trump before, why not now?

Why would he do that when Rand's policy is for Moratorium on Immigration from Middle East. It is not a mistake, it is what needs to be done if the American people have any form of self preservation. We do not risk the lives of our people to those that want destroy us for some open border fantasy.

I know, what the hell are we doing here? 30 countries? Seriously? I'd be ok with Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria and maybe Indonesia. And that's being generous as we have never been attacked by anyone in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria and Indonesia. Paul isn't saying ban all Muslims but with that many countries on his no go list HE MIGHT AS WELL.

This is the type of crap that is stopping/stopped me from going all in for Paul

What does it say about you that your quest for open borders is more important than the lives that may be taken in mass killings due to your support of indiscriminate immigration.

 

[brandon]

This could be the one thing that finally sinks him. Even if a lot of Republicans agree with him, this statement is general election poison

 

[kahless]

This could be the one thing that finally sinks him. Even if a lot of Republicans agree with him, this statement is general election poison

It is only poison to the NY elites and to those that would never vote for him in the first place.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

If you're that anxious to meet folks from terrorist-infested countries, you could always travel or migrate over there yourself.

I know, what the hell are we doing here? 30 countries? Seriously? I'd be ok with Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria and maybe Indonesia. And that's being generous as we have never been attacked by anyone in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria and Indonesia. Paul isn't saying ban all Muslims but with that many countries on his no go list HE MIGHT AS WELL.

This is the type of crap that is stopping/stopped me from going all in for Paul

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Even better you can pull their pants down. If they are not cut then they are probably Muslims.

Birthers Want To See Obama's Penis

http://jezebel.com/5344988/birthers-...e-obamas-penis

Rush Limbaugh wrong that Obama is mandating circumcision

 

[erowe1]

Why would he do that when Rand's policy is for Moratorium on Immigration from Middle East.

Moratorium from certain countries is not the same thing as applying a religious test.

Trump is blatantly promising that after he puts his hand on his favorite book and vows to uphold the 1st Amendment, he intends to turn right around and break that promise.

This is the perfect opportunity for Rand to highlight his fidelity to the Constitution.

 

[erowe1]

I just want to point out that Dr. Dog was banned and Kahless is still here.

 

[kahless]

I just want to point out that Dr. Dog was banned and Kahless is still here.

If I am booted from the forums and you are still here then it is pretty clear these forums no longer represent Rand Paul. It would mean the Progressive opposition succeeded in taking over the forums since I have spent the last 3 months continually correcting you for repeatedly misrepresenting your beliefs as Rand's policies. If anyone should be banned it should be you.

 

[erowe1]

If I am booted from the forums and you are still here then it is pretty clear these forums no longer represent Rand Paul. It would mean the Progressive opposition succeeded in taking over the forums since I have spent the last 3 months continually correcting you for repeatedly misrepresenting your beliefs as Rand's policies. If anyone should be banned it should be you.

The exact policies you promote most zealously epitomize progressivism.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

If I am booted from the forums and you are still here then it is pretty clear these forums no longer represent Rand Paul. It would mean the Progressive opposition succeeded in taking over the forums since I have spent the last 3 months continually correcting you for repeatedly misrepresenting your beliefs as Rand's policies. If anyone should be banned it should be you.

Well, to be exact I think that since these are the "Ron Paul Forums", as long as people are staying close to the vision, philosophies and principles of Ron Paul, they shouldn't be banned. No matter which candidate they support for 2016

However in the Rand Paul subforum, stumping for other candidates should certainly be a ban-able offense.