ExiledInIllinois Posted October 1, 2016 Author Posted October 1, 2016 This cuts to the core right there, and you have it backwards. Google "diversity plus proximity equal war"...it's easy to have a liberal, free society when the population is homogenous (see Northern Europe), but if you want to have diversity it forces the hand of authority. Adding a large number of Muslims would be a whole new layer of diversity... very bad idea. America is having more than enough problems assimilating the large number of Latinos that have arrived in the last 30 years. As did we w/other groups during our history. Irish come to mind.
Prickly Pete Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 (edited) As did we w/other groups during our history. Irish come to mind. Did what, assimilate? Yes, I think it can be done, but it takes a long time, and the further apart the colliding cultures, the harder it is. Middle-Eastern Muslim culture is a bigger leap than needed for Irish Catholic, no? We are still assimilating Latinos (or maybe they are assimilating Europeans?). Edited October 1, 2016 by HoF Watkins
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) As did we w/other groups during our history. Irish come to mind.The Irish culture was compatible with Western republican democracy; and their religious differences prevented them from the presidency for about 100 years, when it was still a major campaign issue. Islamic culture, as it exists today, pre-reformation, is not compatible with Western republican democracy. It is the antithesis of Western republican democracy. It is not our job to welcome them in hopes that they will assimilate. It is their job to reform and become assimilatable. Edited October 2, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
Prickly Pete Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) I say we only admit Muslim women, and gay Muslims. That will expedite any assimilation. And maybe even out the stats with Europe, where it appears to be around 85% males. They left a lot of women behind. Edited October 2, 2016 by HoF Watkins
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2016 Author Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) The Irish culture was compatible with Western republican democracy; and their religious differences prevented them from the presidency for about 100 years, when it was still a major campaign issue. Islamic culture, as it exists today, pre-reformation, is not compatible with Western republican democracy. It is the antithesis of Western republican democracy. It is not our job to welcome them in hopes that they will assimilate. It is their job to reform and become assimilatable. Then we need to some his address this incompatibility in our Constitution. Clearly not everybody is equal to our way of life. Or is it addressed w/regard to treason against our country? Edited October 2, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Then we need to some his address this incompatibility in our Constitution. Clearly not everybody is equal to our way of life. Or is it addressed w/regard to treason against our country? It is addressed through what it prescribes and permits. You'd know that if you'd ever taken the time to read and understand it. Edited October 2, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2016 Author Posted October 2, 2016 It is addressed through what it prescribes and permits. You'd know that if you'd ever taken the time to read and understand it. Yeah... just not an expert like you. It's Saturday night and I am posting on a Political forum. The pros like you that post on this same forum got all this important stuff nailed down.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Yeah... just not an expert like you. It's Saturday night and I am posting on a Political forum. The pros like you that post on this same forum got all this important stuff nailed down.Some of us simply feel like it's important to understand the subject matter before we open our mouths. Here, I'll help you: explain how the Constitution doesn't address this issue.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2016 Author Posted October 2, 2016 Some of us simply feel like it's important to understand the subject matter before we open our mouths. Here, I'll help you: explain how the Constitution doesn't address this issue. Seems these two are in conflict. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort..." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...;
unbillievable Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 What the police need is an image change. I'd be willing...
B-Man Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 What the police need is an image change. I'd be willing... STOP & F____K frisk ?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Seems these two are in conflict. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort..." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...; Only if you're an idiot.
/dev/null Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Stop & Frisk goes back to the root cause of implicit bias, which Secretary Clinton touched upon during the first Presidential debate. And I must admit that I too am guilty of implicit bias. Whenever I see a post by EII, in the back of my mind I have that seed of doubt that this is gonna be a !@#$ing retarded post
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2016 Author Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Only if you're an idiot.Typical... Nothing left but name calling. Sorry to bother you oh busy constitutional scholar... All the policy makers must make you schedule hell... Nothing left to give as usual... Now run away, again. Hey... TYTT... What's your constitutional take on stop & frisk? You're the USC scholar here. Stop & Frisk goes back to the root cause of implicit bias, which Secretary Clinton touched upon during the first Presidential debate. And I must admit that I too am guilty of implicit bias. Whenever I see a post by EII, in the back of my mind I have that seed of doubt that this is gonna be a !@#$ing retarded post Least you don't hate a whole race of people because they have a heavy jawline. Edited October 2, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois
Prickly Pete Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) Typical... Nothing left but name calling. Sorry to bother you oh busy constitutional scholar... All the policy makers must make you schedule hell... Nothing left to give as usual... Now run away, again. Hey... TYTT... What's your constitutional take on stop & frisk? You're the USC scholar here. Least you don't hate a whole race of people because they have a heavy jawline. It's more a matter of how to proceed. Suddenly introducing millions of Muslims while the US (and really Western Civilization) is in the middle of heightened tensions (like bombings, head removals, random shootings, random stabbings, happening pretty much weekly) seems um..."counter-intuitive" (stupid). I am completely in support of giving aid to Syrian refugees, just not inviting them to become citizens, and having the taxpayers (without any real voice in the matter) pay for it all. A slow introduction of more Muslims (across decades) is worth considering, but a big sudden dump of hundreds of thousands RIGHT NOW, is no good. Edited October 2, 2016 by HoF Watkins
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2016 Author Posted October 2, 2016 It's more a matter of how to proceed. Suddenly introducing millions of Muslims while the US (and really Western Civilization) is in the middle of heightened tensions (like bombings, head removals, random shootings, random stabbings, happening pretty much weekly) seems um..."counter-intuitive" (stupid). I am completely in support of giving aid to Syrian refugees, just not inviting them to become citizens, and having the taxpayers (without any real voice in the matter) pay for it all. A slow introduction of more Muslims (across decades) is worth considering, but a big sudden dump of hundreds thousands RIGHT NOW, is no good. Thank you for the thoughtful comment, I do respect it. Unfortunately, some do not have the same temperament and look for the easy attack. I am sorry and apologize if I fall prey to these same methods. Again, thanks.
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) This cuts to the core right there, and you have it backwards. Google "diversity plus proximity equal war"...it's easy to have a liberal, free society when the population is homogenous (see Northern Europe), but if you want to have diversity it forces the hand of authority. Adding a large number of Muslims would be a whole new layer of diversity... very bad idea. America is having more than enough problems assimilating the large number of Asians and Latinos that have arrived in the last 30 years. You should ask Ozymandius to the prom. Edited October 2, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin
Maury Ballstein Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 You should ask Ozymandius to the prom. Someone hasn't been watching the news. Enjoy the pressure cookers and stabbings infidel.
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 You should ask Ozymandius to the prom. Please explain why we should be bringing refugees in to this county. Other than a feel good gesture what is the benefit?
Doc Posted October 2, 2016 Posted October 2, 2016 Please explain why we should be bringing refugees in to this county. Other than a feel good gesture what is the benefit? There's nothing other than this. You know, "moral compass" and all.
Recommended Posts