Father of slain Muslim US soldier to Donald Trump: 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one'

[2MuchMark]

Father of slain Muslim US soldier to Donald Trump: 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one' - CNNPolitics.com

Ouch!

[Joe Obenberger]

It would be hard to convince me that anyone with anyone with a child who goes into the military is willingly sacrificing the life of that child. When our children start wearing a uniform, we pray that they survive, instead. The death of his son is certainly his profound loss. But a sacrifice, as I've always understood the word, is made willingly and voluntarily. I do not believe that this gentleman intended that his son's life be taken in action, but to the contrary, that his son would live a long and happy life. To mistake loss with sacrifice may be rousing rhetoric, but it cheapens the virtue of sacrifice in some small, but real, way.

I have read the Constitution. Perhaps he has not read it himself. It is allocated to Congress to create uniform rules concerning naturalization. Article I, Section 8.

The Constitution grants no one the right to enter the United States. (Though I suppose that such a right extends by implication to US Citizens.) The borders of the United States belong to the United States exclusively and no non-citizen possesses any right to cross those borders to enter the US by virtue of any right arising under the Constitution. It has never been the law here, deriving from the Constitution, that all foreigners have an equal right or opportunity to cross those borders. Since immigration was first controlled our laws have always played favorites among those who wish to come here, sometimes concerning geography, sometimes involving character and background, and sometimes by virtue of ethnicity and race. I didn't write any of those laws and I am saying nothing about whether I agree or disagree with any of them. I am only speaking to their legal legitimacy. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has ever been undermined by any US Court - and the right to control admission into the US for any reason - or for no good reason at all - seems to be under the fairly arbitrary control of US law. It is one thing to suggest that a US immigration policy is wrong or immoral or whatever. But it is just plain wrong to suggest that the Constitution limits the power of the US government to limit immigration from specified countries - even if the intent is to affect the immigration of adherents of one religion or another.

[Barry-xlovecam]

You are right Joe, by reason of; The Emergency Quota Act, also known as the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921 -- the rest of my family, that left Russia after 1921, had to immigrate to Canada and Argentina from Russia.

The quotas are not contested when they are relative to nationality.
However, when the quotas are based on quotas of inequalities of race or religion, as guaranteed in the United States, it sends out a bad message of hypocrisy to the world -- that we only see US citizens' rights but present the image of US xenophobic bigotry to rest the world.

The USA does not live in a vacuum. We benefit from the world and the world should benefit from us. Most importantly, we need to offer some enlightenment and not regress toward Mercantilism and the past bigotry of Renaissance Europe -- that is why there is a new world, and the nation we call the United States, that was formed and settled by the immigrants of ALL the world.

In colloquial language; we are pissing into the wind and getting a face full -- foreign terrorism is a good example -- this is where it is coming from. If you shit on the world, sooner or later, the world throws your shit back in your face -- karma.

[Bladewire]

Trump is selfish. Money he owes has to be taken from him, not given by him out of honoring the deal. Even his $1 million dollar donation that he lied about giving, had to be taken months later, the day the story broke.

You can see Mr. Khan is a proud American. I assure you there are GOP operatives trying to find dirt to teach him as we speak

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

It would be hard to convince me that anyone with anyone with a child who goes into the military is willingly sacrificing the life of that child. When our children start wearing a uniform, we pray that they survive, instead. The death of his son is certainly his profound loss. But a sacrifice, as I've always understood the word, is made willingly and voluntarily. I do not believe that this gentleman intended that his son's life be taken in action, but to the contrary, that his son would live a long and happy life. To mistake loss with sacrifice may be rousing rhetoric, but it cheapens the virtue of sacrifice in some small, but real, way.

I think you missed the entire point of the speech.

Trump is saying that he will ban all Muslims from entering the country. In this case, Trump would have banned a hero from entering the country and serving in our military. How many teachers, police offices, firefighters, and doctors will Trump ban from the country? My neighbor is Muslim - He is a highway patrol officer. Should we prevent people like him from entering the country?

If a Frenchman or a German goes on a rampage in the United States, will we start preventing people from France or Germany from entering the US?

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by **********

Father of slain Muslim US soldier to Donald Trump: 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one' - CNNPolitics.com

Ouch!

How much was this complete exception to the rule paid? Please find out and post it as passionately as you post this article. Thanks.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I think you missed the entire point of the speech.

Trump is saying that he will ban all Muslims from entering the country. In this case, Trump would have banned a hero from entering the country and serving in our military. How many teachers, police offices, firefighters, and doctors will Trump ban from the country? My neighbor is Muslim - He is a highway patrol officer. Should we prevent people like him from entering the country?

If a Frenchman or a German goes on a rampage in the United States, will we start preventing people from France or Germany from entering the US?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe you're right that I missed the entire point of his remarks. He pulled out a constitution and claimed that Trump never read it. I took his implication to be that it would be unconstitutional to discriminate against foreigners because there's a constitutional right to open, free, and unregulated immigration here. I thought that was the climax of the address. Maybe you can explain better why he pulled out the constitution and claimed that Trump never read it?

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

You are right Joe, by reason of; The Emergency Quota Act, also known as the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921 -- the rest of my family, that left Russia after 1921, had to immigrate to Canada and Argentina from Russia.

The quotas are not contested when they are relative to nationality.
However, when the quotas are based on quotas of inequalities of race or religion, as guaranteed in the United States, it sends out a bad message of hypocrisy to the world -- that we only see US citizens' rights but present the image of US xenophobic bigotry to rest the world.

The USA does not live in a vacuum. We benefit from the world and the world should benefit from us. Most importantly, we need to offer some enlightenment and not regress toward Mercantilism and the past bigotry of Renaissance Europe -- that is why there is a new world, and the nation we call the United States, that was formed and settled by the immigrants of ALL the world.

In colloquial language; we are pissing into the wind and getting a face full -- foreign terrorism is a good example -- this is where it is coming from. If you shit on the world, sooner or later, the world throws your shit back in your face -- karma.

R-Tard, who rules? You can stop typing your planted thoughs, and think for yourself for a change. It will make alot of people actually read your rants, instead of looking at it like another brainwashed fool's story. Thanks.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by nico-t

R-Tard, who rules? You can stop typing your planted thoughs, and think for yourself for a change. It will make alot of people actually read your rants, instead of looking at it like another brainwashed fool's story. Thanks.

Fuck you very much for your advice.

You are not even a US citizen.
You are not particularly articulate either.

"Planted though[(t) s.i.c.]s"? Mind control?

Also, 'alot' is spelled 'a lot' which is indicative of your IQ and educational level. Fuck, don't you have spell check LMAO.

"who rules?" You don't -- that I am positive of.

Apart from that 'virtual spanking'; You suffer from psychological neuroses--specifically:projection bias --and should be getting mental treatment for it.

[MiamiBoyz]

Grieving father clearly out of his mind. Should just take some xanax and shut the fuck up,

[Barry-xlovecam]

The real point is here is an example of a Pakistani Muslim American man waving that Pamphlet US Constitution the same way that the Jihadis wave the Koran in our faces --and asking why his son, a US Army Captain, died saving the US Army soldiers under his command. The Islamic symbolism of waving the book in the face of the non believer infidel is what is missed here -- this is very sad.

A Muslim-American whose family is from Pakistan can be a loyal American and put his country ahead of everything else, going beyond the call of duty and risking his life for his country. This man's son died with honor. Donald Trump wants to deny other members of this man's family legal entry and immigration into the "Promised Land" only for reason of the religion -- that is how many people see the USA -- a place where they aspire to live.

This old man is not a towel-head he is wearing a western suit. His son was a Army Captain so he had a college education. Maybe, these men are exceptions to the rule but to their community (meaning all Middle Eastern Muslims) they are successful Americanized role models.

And you want to throw that away because you fear the next unknown Islamic Terrorist State attack -- which is exactly what the terrorists want -- a "holy war'' for all true-believers to see +1 for the Islamic Terrorist State.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by nico-t

How much was this complete exception to the rule paid? Please find out and post it as passionately as you post this article. Thanks.

I didn't post it passionately. My only comment was "ouch", as in, Trump being show what an asshole he is, again.

For the rest, I didn't make the speech, so I'll let you do your own research on that.


Peace.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by MiamiBoyz

Grieving father clearly out of his mind. Should just take some xanax and shut the fuck up,

His son died fighting for the US, and Trump constantly shits on his son. How much Xanax would you have to take to feel better if Trump was doing this to you and your dead son?

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

The real point is here is an example of a Pakistani Muslim American man waving that Pamphlet US Constitution the same way that the Jihadis wave the Koran in our faces --and asking why his son, a US Army Captain, died saving the US Army soldiers under his command. The Islamic symbolism of waving the book in the face of the non believer infidel is what is missed here -- this is very sad.

A Muslim-American whose family is from Pakistan can be a loyal American and put his country ahead of everything else, going beyond the call of duty and risking his life for his country. This man's son died with honor. Donald Trump wants to deny other members of this man's family legal entry and immigration into the "Promised Land" only for reason of the religion -- that is how many people see the USA -- a place where they aspire to live.

This old man is not a towel-head he is wearing a western suit. His son was a Army Captain so he had a college education. Maybe, these men are exceptions to the rule but to their community (meaning all Middle Eastern Muslims) they are successful Americanized role models.

And you want to throw that away because you fear the next unknown Islamic Terrorist State attack -- which is exactly what the terrorists want -- a "holy war'' for all true-believers to see +1 for the Islamic Terrorist State.

Quite sloppy reasoning, gibberish.

There is no contitutional right to open immigration. The gentleman in question's rhetoric was aimed to suggest to the contrary, to convey the opposite. He aimed his remarks to mislead his audience, precisely a lie, and to lie that Trump is ignorant of something that a reading of the constitution could easily answer. What he actually established is that Trump onows the limits of the constitution better than he.

Why does this matter?

After two generations of pudding-brained, left-leaning elementary and high school teachers, a big proportion of mids come out of school in our cities believing that they have a constitutionally-protected right to be fed, a warm place to sleep, Medical Care, higher education Etc. Of course none of these things are anyone's guaranteed right under the American Constitution. But they have been erroneously taught by these soft-brained teachers that such a right exists. They become angry that these so-called fundamental rights that really don't exist are being violated. That anger leads them to Crime to forcibly take what they honestly believe is their entitlement which has been denied to them. That is at least a small part of the problem of crime in American cities today. There is no right to a free lunch. There is no right to open immigration. Falsely teaching people that they have rights that don't exist in reality will never lead to a good conclusion.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by **********

His son died fighting for the US, and Trump constantly shits on his son. How much Xanax would you have to take to feel better if Trump was doing this to you and your dead son?

Mark, a moment's thought will convince you that this just isn't true.

Trump has said not a word that I've seen critical of Muslims in general. Not the dead Muslim officer, not his father, and not Muslims as members of a faith. If you think I'm wrong, point me to a quote.

For several days after 911, commercial air travel was halted as a safety precaution. This was intended to be prophylactic, to stop anything in play. As an air traveler, it would have been unreasonable for me to take this to impugn me personally.

Trump aims to quarantine American from radical Islamists because of the threat of murder of innocents at their hands. It would be cool if we could identify them by physical characteristics, or by readily-ascertainable objective criteria but that's impossible. He proposes quarantining a larger group that can be better identified and ascertained. The morality of such a technique is open for debate, a debate which would hinge, I think, on the practical ability of such a quarantine to actually identify threat and reduce terrorist murders and the pain and death that it might prevent, weighed against the harmful consequences of such a quarantine. It would be the same calculus used in public health medicine to judge the prudence of a quarantine aimed at limiting the spread of a disease. Trump identified his proposal as a temporary measure until better determiners of terror risk could be identified, a stopgap measure, a tourniquet. The temporary nature of the measure is also part of the calculus appropriate to judge its morality.

You've said that this really about defecating on the memory of the lost captain and his father and muslims in general. If that's true, it should not be difficult for you to identify Trump statements which, in their context, are critical of Muslim people in general. I don't believe that your post is accurate. There is a great much exaggeration and distortion of Trump's position these days - coming out of a very scared Establishment that is quite afraid of losing power to the populist voting revolution that explains Trump's success.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Quite sloppy reasoning, gibberish.

No Joe it's called morality and ethics -- they don't teach that in law school

[Barry-xlovecam]

Israel built a high cement wall on its border on the West Bank, there is a heavily patrolled border fence on all the land borders of that country and the navy patrols the seacoast.

There are still terrorist attacks in Israel -- so the border isolation theory is just Horse Shit. And this was proven in the last century with the Berlin Wall. The Great Wall of China did not stop the Mongol invaders either. No border is invincible any rational man knows that.

That is historical fact.

Deportation might work maybe Mr. Trump has a final solution in mind.

I have managed to be in the exact places of two terrorists attack, in Tel Aviv and Nice,FR prior to their occurrence (by weeks and moths respectively) so I have a good grasp of this danger. But short of having used tactical nuclear short range missiles two years ago to evaporate ISIS in Syria and Iraq and in the process kill 200K or 300K innocent civilians -- there is no real solution other than to roll up in a ball and die.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe you're right that I missed the entire point of his remarks. He pulled out a constitution and claimed that Trump never read it. I took his implication to be that it would be unconstitutional to discriminate against foreigners because there's a constitutional right to open, free, and unregulated immigration here. I thought that was the climax of the address. Maybe you can explain better why he pulled out the constitution and claimed that Trump never read it?

I didn't hear the entire speech. I surely do not sit around and watch the entire conventions (either of them); I just have way better things to do with my free time.

What I walked away with from his speech was his son was a war hero, and Trumps plans to ban Muslims would have prevented people like his from becoming America citizens. When he held up the constitution his point wasn't that what Trump plans to do was against the constitution, but that it was "un-American". ALL Americans are either immigrants or the family of immigrants; I can trace my family line all the way back to Poland and Ireland.

But this brings up another point - Has Trump read the constitution? Can he debate about it? I bet you he cannot. Most Americans have read the constitution and studied briefly in school, but that's about it. I studied it in school, and there is no way I can debate the finer points of the constitution.

I wish they would put some questions about the constitution into the debates. That would be interesting.

[Barry-xlovecam]

And, I was alive when Goldwater was running for president and stayed up late election night to celebrate his landslide loss.

He openly said he would have considered using the hydrogen bomb in North Vietnam and may have started WW3 -- the cold war was not so cold then Joe. We were having air raid drills and hiding the the school basement. Lot of good that would have done. Go hide in the basement and "Put your head between your legs and kiss your sweet ass good bye was the mantra".

It was a monumental loss -- Goldwater was a total idiot
Maybe, that is where Trump gets some of his ideas? I really don't know. Maybe, the Demons in the wanna-be emperor's head tell him

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

...

But this brings up another point - Has Trump read the constitution? Can he debate about it? I bet you he cannot. Most Americans have read the constitution and studied briefly in school, but that's about it. I studied it in school, and there is no way I can debate the finer points of the constitution.

I wish they would put some questions about the constitution into the debates. That would be interesting.

The canidates would walk around the question and ''get back to you with an answer'' (If they were smart*)

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

It would be hard to convince me that anyone with anyone with a child who goes into the military is willingly sacrificing the life of that child. When our children start wearing a uniform, we pray that they survive, instead. The death of his son is certainly his profound loss. But a sacrifice, as I've always understood the word, is made willingly and voluntarily. I do not believe that this gentleman intended that his son's life be taken in action, but to the contrary, that his son would live a long and happy life. To mistake loss with sacrifice may be rousing rhetoric, but it cheapens the virtue of sacrifice in some small, but real, way.

I have read the Constitution. Perhaps he has not read it himself. It is allocated to Congress to create uniform rules concerning naturalization. Article I, Section 8.

The Constitution grants no one the right to enter the United States. (Though I suppose that such a right extends by implication to US Citizens.) The borders of the United States belong to the United States exclusively and no non-citizen possesses any right to cross those borders to enter the US by virtue of any right arising under the Constitution. It has never been the law here, deriving from the Constitution, that all foreigners have an equal right or opportunity to cross those borders. Since immigration was first controlled our laws have always played favorites among those who wish to come here, sometimes concerning geography, sometimes involving character and background, and sometimes by virtue of ethnicity and race. I didn't write any of those laws and I am saying nothing about whether I agree or disagree with any of them. I am only speaking to their legal legitimacy. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has ever been undermined by any US Court - and the right to control admission into the US for any reason - or for no good reason at all - seems to be under the fairly arbitrary control of US law. It is one thing to suggest that a US immigration policy is wrong or immoral or whatever. But it is just plain wrong to suggest that the Constitution limits the power of the US government to limit immigration from specified countries - even if the intent is to affect the immigration of adherents of one religion or another.

This.

Plus it's laughable to have the silly puppet wave a copy of the constitution in our face when his candidate wants to destroy the second amendment.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

No Joe it's called morality and ethics -- they don't teach that in law school

Barry -

It's plain that you know nothing about what is taught in law school

In every law school I know about, one semester or two semester of ethics are required for graduation.

In each state I know about, separate and apart from the Bar Exam, passing an ethics exam is required for admission. In the states I know best, lawyers are required to take an additional two hours of continuing ethics examination in each two year reporting period.

Ethics among lawyers is administered, and lawyers are disbarred and otherwise disciplined for ethical breaches, by state courts and agencies. The cost of the process, not inexpensive, is taxed to lawyers annually.

On the other hand, you need to have no ethics whatever to post on GFY. You prove that in most every post.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Barry -

It's plain that you know nothing

On the other hand, you need to have no ethics whatever to post on GFY. You prove that in most every post.

Well, that is you opinion and your are entitled to it.

[OneHungLo]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I think you missed the entire point of the speech.

Trump is saying that he will ban all Muslims from entering the country. In this case, Trump would have banned a hero from entering the country and serving in our military. How many teachers, police offices, firefighters, and doctors will Trump ban from the country? My neighbor is Muslim - He is a highway patrol officer. Should we prevent people like him from entering the country?

If a Frenchman or a German goes on a rampage in the United States, will we start preventing people from France or Germany from entering the US?

If Frenchmen killed 30,000 people since 2015 in the name of France, yes we should.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

And, I was alive when Goldwater was running for president and stayed up late election night to celebrate his landslide loss.

He openly said he would have considered using the hydrogen bomb in North Vietnam and may have started WW3 -- the cold war was not so cold then Joe. We were having air raid drills and hiding the the school basement. Lot of good that would have done. Go hide in the basement and "Put your head between your legs and kiss your sweet ass good bye was the mantra".

It was a monumental loss -- Goldwater was a total idiot
Maybe, that is where Trump gets some of his ideas? I really don't know. Maybe, the Demons in the wanna-be emperor's head tell him

Barry, I really don't need your lessons on the Cold War. I was there. Army Captain four years. Directly supported the Pershing nuclear troops on the ground 1979-1981. Any presidential candidate who would agree not to "consider" the use of nuclear weapons in any case is unfit to serve. The Russians still invest heavily in Civil Defense and the Swiss Civil Defense is maintained on standby. It is a good idea to be prepared for any eventuality that might offer survival, and one does his best under the ambient circumstances. Blast damage only goes so far. Radiation and Heat go further and a well timed desk-dive can mean the difference between disfiguring or lethal burns each destroying a life and only temporary illness. You think in broad sweeps aiming to approximate truth. Actual knowledge requires precision and tight thinking.

In the end, Lyndon Johnson lacked the courage to defeat the communists, afraid to invade the North. The North was far more courageous (and far less principled) because it had no qualms in repeatedly invading the South. Would China have risked the vaporization of Peking, would Russia have risked annihilation of Moscow, so save Hanoi? Not a chance. LBJ's falure of will set up a stalemate that caused the pointless death of 50,000 Americans, and ultimately, the betrayal of the people of South Vietnam. We should have waged total, unrestricted ground warfare against the North and annihilated communism in Vietnam or we should have said goodbye and left. One or the other. Failure to decide one or the other, indecision, killed brave Americans needlessly, turned off the American public, and led to disaster.

But that's miles away from the issue. The gentleman in question dishonestly asserted that there is constitutional right to open immigration without discrimination. He assertion that Trump would know that if he'd read the constitution is dishonest and dangerous.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

This.

Plus it's laughable to have the silly puppet wave a copy of the constitution in our face when his candidate wants to destroy the second amendment.

I could not possibly agree more.

The leftists trot out the constitution when they want some rhetorical flourish - and it usually turns out that they have not a clue that it does not provide every imaginable desire of worldwide marxism. They will tell you that it does so - out of ignorance. This is an archetypical example. If only Trump - who they suppose to have never read it - had gone through it, he'd find a constitutional right that isn't really there? Whose ignorance is really thereby proven?

And you are right. The leftist are willing to disregard every fundamental constitutional right that is textually protected - including the 2d Amendment - when it gets in the way of their "progressive" (read "communist") agenda. Just halfway through Khruschev's memoirs - he throws the term "progressive" around like salt and pepper.

[JamesM83]

Originally Posted by **********

His son died fighting for the US, and Trump constantly shits on his son. How much Xanax would you have to take to feel better if Trump was doing this to you and your dead son?

wow, well said 👊🏼

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Quite sloppy reasoning, gibberish.

There is no contitutional right to open immigration. The gentleman in question's rhetoric was aimed to suggest to the contrary, to convey the opposite. He aimed his remarks to mislead his audience, precisely a lie, and to lie that Trump is ignorant of something that a reading of the constitution could easily answer. What he actually established is that Trump onows the limits of the constitution better than he.

Actually Khan was referencing illegal Mexican immigrants on American soil that Trump has said he'd round up and ship back to Mexico, where in the United States they have "liberty" and "equal protection of law" according to our constitution. "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Any person, not citizen, on U.S. soil.

I'm not waiving the flag of open immigration BTW. I live in Southern California and South American immigrants have ravaged & abused our economy. Year after year the Republican controlled Senate and House have rejected bills to increase border patrol and fix/extend the border wall. I made a post of the 3 last bills struck down somewhere here on GFY.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Well, that is you opinion and your are entitled to it.

Nah. You've proven it with your posts

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Actually Khan was referencing illegal Mexican immigrants on American soil that Trump has said he'd round up and ship back to Mexico, where they have "liberty" and "equal protection of law" according to the constitution. "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Any person, not citizen, on U.S. soil.

Illegals are to be deported per US law.

The end

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Israel built a high cement wall on its border on the West Bank, there is a heavily patrolled border fence on all the land borders of that country and the navy patrols the seacoast.

There are still terrorist attacks in Israel -- so the border isolation theory is just Horse Shit. And this was proven in the last century with the Berlin Wall. The Great Wall of China did not stop the Mongol invaders either. No border is invincible any rational man knows that.

That is historical fact.

Deportation might work maybe Mr. Trump has a final solution in mind.

I have managed to be in the exact places of two terrorists attack, in Tel Aviv and Nice,FR prior to their occurrence (by weeks and moths respectively) so I have a good grasp of this danger. But short of having used tactical nuclear short range missiles two years ago to evaporate ISIS in Syria and Iraq and in the process kill 200K or 300K innocent civilians -- there is no real solution other than to roll up in a ball and die.

To save the world from Naziism, the Allies had no problems slaughtering tens of millions of civilians - mostly Germans - in the Forties. Two hundred or three hundred thousand civilian lives in Tokyo Hamburg and Dresden, and lesser numbers in Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Berlin, and other cities didn't matter to our leaders when it's total war. The indiscriminate use of poorly aimed V weapons at England was less effective, but came from the same thinking. I've never been comfortable with those civilian deaths, and there is little question that had the war gone the other war, a most serious case of war crimes might have been prosecuted against our leaders, including Churchill.

When does it become immoral to take means to protect American, French, and Belgian lives? I don't think we reach that point by restricting immigration, that looks too much like a justifiable quarantine akin to medical quarantine to offend my morality. If we could keep the Zika virus out of the US by banning the entry of new mosquitos to these shores, I'd do it. People are not mosquitos, and the issue of quarantine has a moral dimension when people are involved. The proposal here is for a temporary ban on immigration. I don't know that I'd do it if I had the power. But I can't call it immoral on its face.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

I could not possibly agree more.

The leftists trot out the constitution when they want some rhetorical flourish - and it usually turns out that they have not a clue that it does not provide every imaginable desire of worldwide marxism. They will tell you that it does so - out of ignorance. This is an archetypical example. If only Trump - who they suppose to have never read it - had gone through it, he'd find a constitutional right that isn't really there? Whose ignorance is really thereby proven?

And you are right. The leftist are willing to disregard every fundamental constitutional right that is textually protected - including the 2d Amendment - when it gets in the way of their "progressive" (read "communist") agenda. Just halfway through Khruschev's memoirs - he throws the term "progressive" around like salt and pepper.

Just remember that most Republicans aren't right wing nutjobs without common sense. Leftists are leftists and they are the minority of the Democratic party. There are fiscally conservative socially liberal Democrats as well as completely conservative Democrats. Socialists have been trying to take over the party for years, and those are the true leftists, they are not Democrats.

I can understand boxing in millions of people to one set of beliefs to prove a point but we know the reality is quite different than everyone voting for one candidate wants the same thing, this is untrue.

[galleryseek]

"You have sacrificed nothing and no one" -- Good. The non-brainwashed do not willingly sacrifice their offspring or resources towards fighting BULLSHIT wars.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by **********

His son died fighting for the US, and Trump constantly shits on his son. How much Xanax would you have to take to feel better if Trump was doing this to you and your dead son?

How again is trump shitting on him?
Please be specific so we know it's just not more of your unfounded drivel

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Actually Khan was referencing illegal Mexican immigrants on American soil that Trump has said he'd round up and ship back to Mexico, where in the United States they have "liberty" and "equal protection of law" according to our constitution. "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Any person, not citizen, on U.S. soil.

I'm not waiving the flag of open immigration BTW. I live in Southern California and South American immigrants have ravaged & abused our economy. Year after year the Republican controlled Senate and House have rejected bills to increase border patrol and fix/extend the border wall. I made a post of the 3 last bills struck down somewhere here on GFY.

Just to be technically accurate, the language you're citing comes from the XIV Amendment and applies to the states - not the federal government. The same result however comes from interpretation of the Vth, in many if not all cases. No dispute that once an immigrant has landed, he has a due process right to a hearing. But that's not a right to remain. It's a right to fight the issue of legality before deportation. And in the end, if he's illegal, he can be deported. Your point is that no one is trying to deport those present here illegally. With or without a fair process. That is a legitimate concern. What good is a law if no one will enforce it? And that's the divide between Trump and the Democrats. He promises to enforce the law better. The Democrats mumble platitudes and argue tear-jerking stories about anchor babies, and about illegal immigrants who go into the military and serve, come out, commit forcible felonies and protest that military service protects a right to remain here forever no matter how many felonies they commit. But in the end, the Democrats are preaching disrespect for the laws, and thereby undermine law in general, giving people one more rationale to pick and chose what laws to obey.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Illegals are to be deported per US law.

The end

Definately!

Deportation of illegals is a long legal process when they get legal representation, and even when they don't it takes months after they receive their NTA. There is no quick fix unless congress changes the process to be more expeditious, and for congress to do that would be a great accomplishment.

Having been a legal immigrant to Australia, and gone through their citizenship process, I can tell you that I respect the process of becoming a citizen. The majority of Mexican & South American illegals to Southern California are just here to abuse the system and support family back home. Unfortunately congress, year after year after year has refused to strengthen our border and put money into increased border patrol, Senate & House under Republican control, still nothing.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Just to be technically accurate, the language you're citing comes from the XIV Amendment and applies to the states - not the federal government. The same result however comes from interpretation of the Vth, in many if not all cases. No dispute that once an immigrant has landed, he has a due process right to a hearing. But that's not a right to remain. It's a right to fight the issue of legality before deportation. And in the end, if he's illegal, he can be deported. Your point is that no one is trying to deport those present here illegally. With or without a fair process. That is a legitimate concern. What good is a law if no one will enforce it? And that's the divide between Trump and the Democrats. He promises to enforce the law better. The Democrats mumble platitudes and argue tear-jerking stories about anchor babies, and about illegal immigrants who go into the military and serve, come out, commit forcible felonies and protest that military service protects a right to remain here forever no matter how many felonies they commit. But in the end, the Democrats are preaching disrespect for the laws, and thereby undermine law in general, giving people one more rationale to pick and chose what laws to obey.

I'm a very conservative Democrat, and socially liberal, so you're preaching to the choir.

I'm a Gang of 8 bill supporter with the addition of strengthened borders. Make illegals here who deserve to be legal, legal, quickly. Document them, get them paying into the systems ASAP, everyone else deport, first ones to go are the ones on public assistance & homeless. After the border is strengthened send all the illegals in jail back to where they came from! Process the backlog and clean house, while putting money into the border. Pretty simple.

[Barry-xlovecam]

I really don't give a fuck ...
Que Sera, Sera

This thread had nothing to do with ILLEGAL aliens #debttoilet.trump

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I really don't give a fuck ...
Que Sera, Sera

This?

[Barry-xlovecam]

That the equivalent of 'fuck it' French colloquial. My Mom did have that on a 78 vinyl used to play it from time to time.

[8pt-buck]

Originally Posted by **********

Father of slain Muslim US soldier to Donald Trump: 'You have sacrificed nothing and no one'

Ouch!

What has Hillary sacrificed for National Security besides the total disaster in overthrowing gaddafi and the butt hole lies Hilary told referring to the Benghazi ordeal. The DNC Chair ousted. I can not see that bobble head winning this election.

[poncabare]

get a life

[deonbell]

Chelsea and Hillary almosted shot by snipers in Yugoslavias.

I hope Hillary wins. I wants to vote in next USA election . I may cross border justs to vote.

[Paul Markham]

Does the Constitution apply to Americans or everyone or people who enter the US?

Banning Muslims is the sort of thing that goes down well the uneducated. Banning everyone who can't fully support themselves and do a job an American can't do is sensible.

As for skills like teachers, nurses, etc. Why aren't we training them ourselves?

[Joe Obenberger]

Only rarely and in sharply limited few circumstances does the constitution afford rights to non-US-Nationals outside the US. That general principal is why Guantanamo Bay was chosen for internment. But US courts became cynical about such a pat answer.

Protection of US territory and banning immigration from places and persons associated with seriosly elevated risk of danger does not appeal only to the uneducated. It is probably most prudent under present circumstances to halt the immigation of persons wha can't affirmatively establish that they amount to a nondanger, requiring visas for all travelers. But that's not really practical because nations will retaliate and require the same of US visitors. Perhaps the best that can be done is to temporarily ban visits from countries associated with high risk until a quite probing visa application and investigation protocol can be designed and tested.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Only rarely and in sharply limited few circumstances does the constitution afford rights to non-US-Nationals outside the US. That general principal is why Guantanamo Bay was chosen for internment. But US courts became cynical about such a pat answer.

Protection of US territory and banning immigration from places and persons associated with seriosly elevated risk of danger does not appeal only to the uneducated. It is probably most prudent under present circumstances to halt the immigation of persons wha can't affirmatively establish that they amount to a nondanger, requiring visas for all travelers. But that's not really practical because nations will retaliate and require the same of US visitors. Perhaps the best that can be done is to temporarily ban visits from countries associated with high risk until a quite probing visa application and investigation protocol can be designed and tested.

I'm a Democrat, you're Republican, we all want what's best for the country.

The solution in a sane centrist leader. Donald Trump is not a sane centrist leader.

[Sarn]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Protection of US territory and banning immigration from places and persons associated with seriosly elevated risk of danger does not appeal only to the uneducated. It is probably most prudent under present circumstances to halt the immigation of persons wha can't affirmatively establish that they amount to a nondanger, requiring visas for all travelers. But that's not really practical because nations will retaliate and require the same of US visitors. Perhaps the best that can be done is to temporarily ban visits from countries associated with high risk until a quite probing visa application and investigation protocol can be designed and tested.

visas small obstacle for terrorists.
they will recruit people in Europe and sent to the US as it was 911.
US economy it is hits more strongly

[Barry-xlovecam]

Does he look like a Muslim Assholes?

[Jigster715]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Does he look like a Muslim Assholes?

I thought the same thing when I saw, "IS" destroying antiquities in Syria. They could have been Chechin, Americans or Israelis.

[Jigster715]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I think you missed the entire point of the speech.

Trump is saying that he will ban all Muslims from entering the country. In this case, Trump would have banned a hero from entering the country and serving in our military. How many teachers, police offices, firefighters, and doctors will Trump ban from the country? My neighbor is Muslim - He is a highway patrol officer. Should we prevent people like him from entering the country?

If a Frenchman or a German goes on a rampage in the United States, will we start preventing people from France or Germany from entering the US?

Please stop embarrassing yourself in political threads when you get your info from half listened to tv broadcasts and the pizza delivery guy. FFS!!!!!!!