the military-industrial complex would really hate that.The most tragic thing is that what knapp said is right, and it will be because of the ban.
This makes America much more dangerous, not safer. The best possible thing for our country is to welcome the Muslim, welcome the poor, welcome the refugee, welcome the downtrodden, then learn, interact, love and grow together. Want to guarantee terrorists keep trying to attack our country with unrelenting radicalism? Paint the United States as being anti-muslim. That makes their recruitment and their propaganda indoctrination that much easier. That makes our country that much more at risk. Fortunately for Trump, that also gives him the ammo he needs to justify trying to literally destroy world peace.
Usually they do satire. This is distillation of actual sentiment.PITTSBURGH—Explaining how defending the population is the government’s ultimate responsibility, area man Greg Farnsworth told reporters Thursday he is willing to give up any of Muslims’ rights necessary to feel safe. “The bottom line is that we are putting innocent lives at risk if we don’t give the government more power to protect us, and if that means giving up a few constitutionally protected freedoms of Muslims in the process, so be it,” said Farnsworth, who added that, while he didn’t necessarily like the idea of the NSA monitoring phone calls or emails, he believed it was vital to accept a few violations of privacy rights among those of the Islamic faith to ensure the nation remained secure. “If last week’s attacks taught us anything, it’s that al-Qaeda is still determined to kill as many people as they can. So if we have to add more security measures at airports for Muslims or track people online who are critical of the U.S. government, provided they are Muslim, in order to keep us safe, I’m willing to make that sacrifice.” Farnsworth added that, if you really considered the lives and well-being of your family, limiting a few rights for Muslims here and there isn’t a bad trade-off at all.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/trump-muslim-ban-travel-lawsuit/index.htmlLegal challenges to the order point to a series of statements about Trump's intent to ban Muslims from entering the US as evidence that the move was in fact designed with such a goal in mind -- and constitutional law experts agree there is a precedent for the courts taking that argument to heart.
In a case currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota cite previous court holdings on religious discrimination that it is "'the duty of the courts to distinguish a sham secular purpose from a sincere one.'"
How many terrorist attacks on the US have originated from those 7 countries?Atbone95 said:And the EO bars entry from 7 countries identified as potential terror threats to the US.Moiraine said:It's unconstitutional to use religion as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.Atbone95 said:There is legal precedent for Trump's EO. This is all a bunch of whiny nonsense. It's 90 days.
The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.
The EO examines country of origin as a factor in whether or not to allow someone into the country.
I absolutely love the irony of people using the term "Snowflake" to defend someone who, by their very definition, would be the most bigly snowflake out there.Lil' Red said:Just curious, does it bother you how much Trump complains? He is literally the most thin-skinned person that I know of.Dewiz said:I'm not the one who's being snowflaking for the past month about Trump sir......the guy I voted for won the election. Life is greatcommando said:toughen up snowflakeDewiz said:Yay another super bowl filled with political commercials #NotMySuperBowl