In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
Currently we tolerance idiotic hyperbolic statements that don't mirror reality. That other stuff really isn't a problem that we can't solve.
Can you name some of these innocent people? Can you provide the evidence that they were, in fact, innocent? Can you further provide the evidence that McCarthy should have known they were innocent?
And here's me, thinking that one good thing that came of the US is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. You don't (need to) prove that they were innocent. He had to proof that they were not. Not the other way around. Can you provide evidence that they were innocent, lol. How about you provide evidence that they were, in fact, not innocent? Because that's kinda how it works, instead of asking others to debunk stupid accusations?
That's a fair point, but I think you're all missing something important:
Membership and/or association to/with the Communist Party was evidence that someone was potentially compromised, and if they worked in the government, it was in my opinion, reasonable to suggest an investigation.
But I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because it seems like our priorities are rather different. I fall more in line with the thinking that the Constitution is not a shield for people who actively work to destroy the Union itself. There is no point in having constitutional protections if you're not going to have a Union in which people can be protected. The existential threat the Soviet Union and Communism posed was such that I think certain measures could be justified, even if in normal times we might avoid them.
If you think protecting the potentially innocent is more important than protecting the nation, I can understand that and I can't even really argue against it. It's a logically sound position. I just happen to disagree with it.
That "evidence" didn't ever pan out, so no it really wasn't.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
Yes, clearly as a liberal I am in favour of FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates. You caught me. Thanks for participating in the conversation, you truly added value with that.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to stand up for liberal principles then you will necessarily have to criticize Islam and at least concede the dangers of bringing in people who would sooner piss on your values and tend not to assimilate well. You can't end up tolerating intolerance and that's the problem with your diversity argument.
Can you name some of these innocent people? Can you provide the evidence that they were, in fact, innocent? Can you further provide the evidence that McCarthy should have known they were innocent?
And here's me, thinking that one good thing that came of the US is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. You don't (need to) prove that they were innocent. He had to proof that they were not. Not the other way around. Can you provide evidence that they were innocent, lol. How about you provide evidence that they were, in fact, not innocent? Because that's kinda how it works, instead of asking others to debunk stupid accusations?
That's a fair point, but I think you're all missing something important:
Membership and/or association to/with the Communist Party was evidence that someone was potentially compromised, and if they worked in the government, it was in my opinion, reasonable to suggest an investigation.
But I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because it seems like our priorities are rather different. I fall more in line with the thinking that the Constitution is not a shield for people who actively work to destroy the Union itself. There is no point in having constitutional protections if you're not going to have a Union in which people can be protected. The existential threat the Soviet Union and Communism posed was such that I think certain measures could be justified, even if in normal times we might avoid them.
If you think protecting the potentially innocent is more important than protecting the nation, I can understand that and I can't even really argue against it. It's a logically sound position. I just happen to disagree with it.
There are multiple groups current within the US who do not believe in the governments right to govern. Who do not hold to the Constitution and who have taken up arms against the US government.
Should these people be rounded up and deported, and if they fail to cooperate arrested, but more likely shot as they resist?
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
Yes, clearly as a liberal I am in favour of FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates. You caught me. Thanks for participating in the conversation, you truly added value with that.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to stand up for liberal principles then you will necessarily have to criticize Islam and at least concede the dangers of bringing in people who would sooner piss on your values and tend not to assimilate well. You can't end up tolerating intolerance and that's the problem with your diversity argument.
By that logic we shouldn't let conservatives in. They hate Western liberal values. Marco Rubio is on record that he won't follow Supreme Court decisions that conflict with God's Laws. His parents ought have bee kept out due to their threat to Western liberal values (such as obeying the Supreme Court).
considering one of the great moments of Mccarthy's career was him holding up his wife's shopping list and claiming that it was a list confirming hundreds of communists in the US government I'd say the whole thing was pretty ridiculous and pointless.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
Yes, clearly as a liberal I am in favour of FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates. You caught me. Thanks for participating in the conversation, you truly added value with that.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to stand up for liberal principles then you will necessarily have to criticize Islam and at least concede the dangers of bringing in people who would sooner piss on your values and tend not to assimilate well. You can't end up tolerating intolerance and that's the problem with your diversity argument.
No they are free to come to your, and mine, country and live within the laws of our countries. If they don't wish to follow those laws then we will jail them as we do any other criminal and probably deport them back to their country of origin.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
Yes, clearly as a liberal I am in favour of FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates. You caught me. Thanks for participating in the conversation, you truly added value with that.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to stand up for liberal principles then you will necessarily have to criticize Islam and at least concede the dangers of bringing in people who would sooner piss on your values and tend not to assimilate well. You can't end up tolerating intolerance and that's the problem with your diversity argument.
When have I ever not criticized militant Islam? Or religion generally?
You are trying to argue against some fantasy you have in your head. I am not that. I am simply opposed to random Americans declaring that their values are the only American values and that groups that don't conform to them are to be discriminated against. That puts me pretty soundly on the right side of history a dozen times over.
If you are going to insist upon arguing against someone who thinks we should import the very worst of medieval barbarism and try and play happy families with it could you at least do me the decency of not quoting me and projecting me into your masturbatory debating fantasies?
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
Yes, clearly as a liberal I am in favour of FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates. You caught me. Thanks for participating in the conversation, you truly added value with that.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to stand up for liberal principles then you will necessarily have to criticize Islam and at least concede the dangers of bringing in people who would sooner piss on your values and tend not to assimilate well. You can't end up tolerating intolerance and that's the problem with your diversity argument.
Can you name some of these innocent people? Can you provide the evidence that they were, in fact, innocent? Can you further provide the evidence that McCarthy should have known they were innocent?
And here's me, thinking that one good thing that came of the US is "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around. You don't (need to) prove that they were innocent. He had to proof that they were not. Not the other way around. Can you provide evidence that they were innocent, lol. How about you provide evidence that they were, in fact, not innocent? Because that's kinda how it works, instead of asking others to debunk stupid accusations?
That's a fair point, but I think you're all missing something important:
Membership and/or association to/with the Communist Party was evidence that someone was potentially compromised, and if they worked in the government, it was in my opinion, reasonable to suggest an investigation.
But I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because it seems like our priorities are rather different. I fall more in line with the thinking that the Constitution is not a shield for people who actively work to destroy the Union itself. There is no point in having constitutional protections if you're not going to have a Union in which people can be protected. The existential threat the Soviet Union and Communism posed was such that I think certain measures could be justified, even if in normal times we might avoid them.
If you think protecting the potentially innocent is more important than protecting the nation, I can understand that and I can't even really argue against it. It's a logically sound position. I just happen to disagree with it.
There are multiple groups current within the US who do not believe in the governments right to govern. Who do not hold to the Constitution and who have taken up arms against the US government.
Should these people be rounded up and deported, and if they fail to cooperate arrested, but more likely shot as they resist?
No you misunderstand, it's perfectly acceptable, even laudable for white folks to point guns at the government to defend their friend's "right" to let cows graze on land they don't own.
Just don't peacefully protest in the streets against known patterns of government sanctioned disregard for black people's constitutional rights because then you've gone too far.
It appears people hold the American value of exploiting and marginalizing non-white and/or poor folks pretty dearly and they don't want people changing that particular American value.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber.
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
EDIT: Pretty sure there's a difference of opinion on what "Sharia Law" implies too.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
what are the "american values"? i'm interested to know
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
That's not the only problem. The problem already comes to surface as soon as an american cites "sharia law" without stating what he means.
In case of xDaunt, i actually do think he knows why that is a flatout misrepresentation to say "sharia law adhering muslims", because most of them do partially (fasts, pilgrimage, prayers - all sharia law, and most have a christian counterpart), but he doesn't give a shit because that doesn't suit his argument.
edit: to be clear, if he'd said "ISISs representation of sharia law adhering muslims", it would make the whole argument pointless. Many muslims agree that ISIS representation of sharia law is not what they understand of it.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out. I agree that "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" Muslims should be allowed in. All that I am doing is pointing out the obvious: there clearly is a large number of Muslims who do not fit the definition of being "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" as a consequence of their views on what their faith requires of them. Because of this, why wouldn't a sane, western, liberal nation view Muslims with an added degree of suspicion and tailor its immigration policies accordingly? The issue is as simple as that.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
EPT
