Pesident Clinton

[buffo]

Eric;

My last two replies were specifically directed at Nii, to rebut points he made. I didn't expect you to reply to each and every point, if any of them at all, unless you both agreed with his position, and disagreed with mine, *and* wished to add to the discussion. No one is forcing you to read or respond to anything.

I have made my position clear over a number of earlier posts and if you and a couple of others disagree that's fine as there are a number of readers that do agree with me.

I'd say it's more than "a couple" who disagree with you. But if you're done with the discussion, for whatever reason, that's fine too.

I will vote for Trump for the many reasons I have given throughout this long thread. There is only one other choice.

There is ALWAYS a choice. Even if you can't support Trump or Hillary, you can always vote 3rd party. Admittedly, people will accuse you of "throwing your vote away", but I respect someone willing to vote for the best candidate (in their opinion) despite public pressure. So long as they are willing to live with the consequences of splitting the vote in our 2-party system, I can understand and respect their position.

No one can claim they are still undecided

I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me what I can and can not do with my vote, thank you very much. I most definitely am undecided at the moment. Who are you to say otherwise?

Adam

[Nii]

I believe so, yes. Tellingly, the current security advisor to the PM is not echoing De Ruvier's claims. I think that speaks volumes.

Or maybe the current security advisor is making his own political statements?

And if we were worried about a wave of sexual molestation terror sweeping the nation, this would be one example demonstrating it.

No, the example was just to show how something terrible can go on for years undetected by people living nearby, that was the whole point of the example.

Throw in a little xenophobia and/or racism, and you've got a stew going...

Can you quit with the remarks?

Poverty makes people desperate. Desperation makes people easy to recruit.

And why do people who recruit them recurit them? Because they are religious fanatics.
You admit that poverty is not the only reason people become radicalized , and you probably will agree that the global poverty issue is not likely to be solved in the near future either. So its only part of the problem and can't be solved.

Prove this. Because the vast majority of Muslims who have come to the US have not done this so far. You think this Belgian ghetto sprung up overnight? Why don't we already have the same thing here?

Prove this? How on earth can I prove it? It's unfalsifiable, everyone can only hint it's likely by drawing analogy with historical facts from different parts of the planet where that has already happened.
And no shit the vast majority of muslims haven't done this, I just said that its a minority, but since the group is so large they are a significant number. Maybe if you'd finally stop arguing with a strawman racist we both could waste less time on this discussion.

Because live in the US is vastly different that Europe?

In what way does life being different in US make you invincible? "Prove it".

If you filter based on their BELIEFS, it's wrong. Period.

If something for you is wrong, period then your views are faith based and we have nothing to discuss here.
if you believe that then you disagree with international law. You don't seem to understand the difference between things like presumption of innocence in a criminal trial period and punishment for dangerous beliefs such as holocaust denial and ban of nazi symbols or inadmissibility laws.

There's no provision for filtering out certain sects of any given religion.

By US inadmissibility laws communist are not allowed in, nazis are not allowed in, but when the belief is labelled "religion" it shouldn't matter? Who told you religion is superior to any other belief system?

And I'm telling you that they won't. Historically we don't see the same problems here in the US that Europe is facing.

Because historically our immigration policies and immigrants have not been the same.

And the unsavory neighborhoods in Belgium (and elsewhere) did not spring up overnight.

So? Did I say the problem will become as bad as in Europe overnight?

Fine. You think your weight matters when you're in the Emergency Room waiting to be treated for a gunshot wound. I think you are being unreasonable.

I think you're being unreasonable to think it's about weight and you have a gunshot wound.

Actually, it does. Have you never wondered why so many overtly homophobic politicians turn out to be closeted homosexuals? Have you never spoken with a gay man or woman and asked them about their inner conflicts as they tried to come to terms with their sexuality? Lashing out at the LGBT community is COMMON among conflicted homosexuals.

"I'm not crying, you're crying!" behavior and killing 50 people is not a good analogy. And certainly not good enough to cross out other possible causality, like radical religious beliefs.

I did, because the shooter...

Well you are arguing with yourself at this point, I wasn't talking about ISIS, ISIS doesn't matter here.

None of this was caused by the Islamic ghettos in Europe.

I asked you to tell me the number of deaths from terrorism this year vs deaths from violent protests which you said was a bigger issue. This is why we are even talking about the Orlando shooter, nobody was arguing that Orlando shooting was caused by "islamic ghettos" in Europe.

On what grounds? Just because his family was Muslim?

Enough is enough, I'm talking about islamism, not islam and not muslims, quit trying to label me as a xenophobe or racist already.

Can't you see where you are going with this? This is exactly why I don't want a change on US foreign policy. To prevent this man's family from entering the US, you would need to ban all Muslims.

No. You don't need to ban all muslims to ban jihadists or islamists, you don't need to ban germans to ban nazis, you don't need to ban russians to ban communists.

His father was not a terrorist. His mother was not a terrorist.

His father was/is a radical islamist.

people are seriously suggesting a radical departure from our nation's core principles.

People are seriously suggesting they have a different view on what our nations core principles are.

You accused me earlier of ignoring the constitution. I now ask you: are you willing to deny freedom of religion to all immigrants in the vain hope that it will prevent another Orlando-style shooting? And if so, do you honestly believe this is a good trade-off, let alone the best solution we can think of?

This is a malformed question, which religion are we talking about? Radical extreme version of islam? Sure. Why isn't it a good trade-off?
Everything deserves a pass if it's labelled a religion? No, religion can can have political and social ideology component. If you advocate nazism, you can't pass, if your religion advocates nazism you can pass. This is stupid.
This is not denying freedom of religion, this is called limiting freedoms or rights when they affect the freedoms and right of others, all types of freedoms are limited this way.

[buffo]

Or maybe the current security advisor is making his own political statements?

Except that his statements would not be at odds with what people living in the neighborhood report, nor would they be at odds with what other Europeans have posted here. See the difference?

Can you quit with the dickish remarks?

You want *ME* to stop being a dick? Pot.Kettle.Black! I've held my temper several times when replying to you. Before you accuse me of anything, you need to ratchet back your own vitriol - big time.

For the record, my comment about "getting a stew going" was meant to be a light-hearted commentary on our national attitude as a whole, and not an attack on you personally.

And why do people who recruit them recurit them? Because they are religious fanatics.

Wrong. They are recruited *BY* people who are fanatics. The people who are recruited need not be anything other than suggestible. Those who are both desperate and vulnerable to persuasion can often be recruited and indoctrinated. Terrorism is LEARNED behavior. Radicalism is LEARNED behavior. It's not intrinsic to anyone. (Well, apart from a sociopath, perhaps.)

More to the point: Explain how former agnostics could be recruited by ISIS, converted to Islam, and radicalized, if they weren't religious to start with.

Prove this? How on earth can I prove it?

Show evidence that it is happening. Or be prepared to offer a compelling argument as to why it hasn't happened yet, but will nonetheless still happen soon.

You have done neither, and now you ask me for help? Seriously?

It's unfalsifiable

If you truly believe this, then you just admitted that you are basing your argument on something you can't be sure is happening. (Which is part of my point, ironically.) I'd say that's pretty damning to your case.

For sure it means I will never support a radical departure from our nation's principles until you can do better than this.

Maybe if you'd finally stop arguing with a strawman racist we both could waste less time on this discussion.

Wow - you accuse me of a strawman argument? Do you even understand the term correctly?

You are the one who can't simply address my points directly. That's one reason why Eric is accusing me of obscuring things with long posts. You keep making the same miss-representations, forcing me to re-state things correctly before issuing a rebuttal.

You claim that radical Islamic terrorism will form Islamic ghettos (for lack of a better term) here in this country which will lead to increased terrorism here. I countered with the fact that the European Islamic ghettos you speak of did not develop overnight, but rather over the course of years. By extension, if this were truly a global threat, then some should have also developed here in the US. Then I pointed out that the same thing has not yet happened here. I asked you to prove your assertion that it will happen soon, and you tell me you can't. Now how, exactly is any of this a strawman?

In what way does life being different in US make you invincible?

There you go again! I never said it made me (or anyone else) invincible! I said that the same Islamic ghettos that you keep talking about in Europe have NOT developed here. You then asked why, to which I opined that there are many differences between Europe and the US.

I should have simply said "Who cares why - it's not my job to supply the mechanism, it's enough to show that it's not happening here, which blows a hole in your claims that it will." Does that suit you better?

If something for you is wrong, period then your views are faith based and we have nothing to discuss here.

Serious question: Are you trolling? Because I'm about as far from faith as a person can be. Furthermore, morality (right and wrong) does NOT have to be based on faith. A first-year philosophy class would have taught you that!

You don't seem to understand the difference between things like presumption of innocence in a criminal trial period and punishment for dangerous beliefs such as holocaust denial and ban of nazi symbols or inadmissibility laws.

Don't preach law to me before you know more about me or my background. You are conflating holocaust denial and nazism with RELIGION. The two are very, very different in the eyes of the law, especially when it comes to the Constitution. You can not deny immigration based on religion. Full stop.

You *can* deny immigration based on things like holocaust denial (at least in Germany), because that is an identifiable ACTION. (Although interestingly, even when the US had the chance to deny entry to Von Braun's team after WWII based solely on their former Nazi ties, we chose not to.)

Do you see the difference now between political / societal views and Religion, as well as the difference between a thought or belief and an action?

By US inadmissibility laws communist are not allowed in, nazis are not allowed in, but when the belief is labelled "religion" it shouldn't matter?

You may not want to hear this, but the Constitution says yes, it does not matter when it comes to Religion. Don't like it? Support a bill to repeal the 1st amendment. Though I doubt you will be successful.

Who told you religion is superior to any other belief system?

I never said that. In fact, personally, I *don't* believe religion is superior to any other belief system.

But I do know that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That's all that matters here. And while, strictly speaking, the constitution doesn't technically apply until AFTER someone physically enters the country, (even if they enter illegally), our immigration policy mirrors this protection of religion that is found in the Constitution.

Back to why Islamic ghettos haven't formed in the US yet...

Because historically our immigration policies and immigrants have not been the same.

And??? If they haven't formed yet, then it would seem our policies are working just fine. Why this sudden rush to change them based on something happening in a different country with different immigration policies?

Did I say the problem will become as bad as in Europe overnight?

No, you did not, nor did I accuse you of saying this. (See, you are in fact using another strawman here.)

What I asked was: if they formed in Europe over the last 2 decades, why have they not formed here in the US over the same time period? And if they haven't formed here yet, my point is that there is no impetus to change our immigration policy now.

"I'm not crying, you're crying!" behavior and killing 50 people is not a good analogy.

Is that your summation of the LGBT community? Overly emotional? Really? That's mighty intolerant of you. I suggest you research the issue further, before you make any more inflammatory remarks like that. Because it makes you sound like a homophobic jackass.

Is every gay person in the US on the verge of a mental breakdown? Of course not. But in general they exhibit higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts when compared to the general population. To dismiss that as nothing more than crying is disrespectful at best.

And certainly not good enough to cross out other possible causality, like radical religious beliefs.

Except there is ample evidence that he did not agree with his father's stricter interpretation of Islam. So what pushed him over the edge? You're saying it's because his religion told him to kill gay people and he believed it? That's horseshit.

I asked you to tell me the number of deaths from terrorism this year vs deaths from violent protests which you said was a bigger issue.

Actually, you specifically said "Islamic terrorism". You should know that the Orlando shooting is not being classified as Islamic terrorism by the Orlando police department or the FBI, who are both investigating the crime.

You appear convinced that just because he was a Muslim, that has to be why he did what he did. But just because an act of terror was committed by someone who was Muslim, that doesn't automatically make it Islamic terrorism. (As an example, Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, yet we don't consider the Oklahoma bombing to be "Christian Terrorism" either.)

If you read more about the shooter, including what many, many people have already written about him and the event itself, you will begin to understand some of the demons he faced and how they contributed to the tragedy.

I'm talking about islamism, not islam and not muslims, quit trying to label me as a xenophobe or racist already.

Then stop acting like a racist. Stop insisting that we change our immigration policies to prevent Muslims from entering our country until they can past some arbitrary filter you come up with. Stop insisting that the fact the Orlando shooter was a Muslim is the reason he killed 50 people. Stop insisting that radical Muslims will move to our country and commit terrorist acts when there is no evidence to support this.

You don't need to ban all muslims to ban jihadists or islamists,

And how, pray tell, will you filter the Jihadists from the "regular" Muslims? What criteria will you use? and bear in mind that they won't be jumping up and down at Ellis island with an AK-47 in one hand and an ISIS flag in the other...

Any way you try to spin this, you are banning someone based on their Religion. The Constitution says you can't do that.

His father was/is a radical islamist.

By what definition? What makes him radical? Devout, I could buy, as he frequented the Mosque, prayed 5 times per day, observed Ramadan, etc... But what makes him "radical"? And be careful with your reply, because I predict that this is exactly where you will cross the constitutionality line.

Here, I'll save you some trouble: You can't say "He believes that gay people are an affront to Allah and that they should be put to death, so he's radical." Bzzzt! The Westboro Baptist Church has members that believe this and more. Until someone actually ACTS on those beliefs in a way that violates the law, they are protected by the Constitution. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

which religion are we talking about? Radical extreme version of islam? Sure. Why isn't it a good trade-off?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about, and you just put the final nail in the coffin. What you are advocating goes against over 200 years of Constitutionally protected liberty. It is a terrible trade-off! And that is *NOT* something that is going to be changed anytime soon. As I said above, if you don't like the 1st Amendment, there are other countries that don't offer that protection. Although I think if you do a bit of research you will quickly learn why you wouldn't want to move.

Adam

[Nii]

Adam, I refuse to reply to you until you stop labeling me a racist. Not that I feel like there's anything new in your comments which I haven't already responded too either.
Call it a lazy excuse, I don't care. I can't respect someone who doesn't know how to behave while debating.

[planters]

Don't know from where you have all of all of this knowledge but please stop talking about "no go areas" here in Europe. These definitely DO NOT exist as proposed by Planters or others.

Yes, they do. When are you guys going to get rid of Merkel?

[buffo]

Adam, I refuse to reply to you until you stop labeling me a racist.

I have nothing else to go on but your posts here, and nothing you have posted so far has given me any reason to doubt this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt right up until your last post where you made it clear that you want to deny people immigration rights based on their religion, in direct violation of the Constitution. How would you interpret that, if not bigoted? (I will admit that race does not refer to religion specifically, so I'll grant you that I should have used the correct term "bigot" rather than "racist". But I'll take that hit happily.)

Your move.

Not that I feel like there's anything new in your comments which I haven't already responded too either.

You respond by changing my points into easily-defeated strawmen and then have the audacity to accuse ME of doing the same. What research have you done on this issue in the past few days? What new facts have you brought to the discussion? What new analogies/arguments/examples have you offered? What real attempt have you made to better understand the issue?

For crying out loud, just this morning you asked ME to explain to you how to prove your point - one which I strongly disagreed with. Then you claimed it couldn't be proved. And that counts as a response in your mind? Seriously?

I can't respect someone who doesn't know how to behave while debating.

Again - Pot.Kettle.Black. You have no idea what you are doing if you think you've been "debating". I've seen better material from freshmen college students. You keep rehashing the same old tripe and haven't brought anything new to the table all week. At this point you are below contempt. And yes, I fully acknowledge that this is devolving into a flame-war. I didn't start it, but everyone has their limit.

You are acting like a petulant child who can't keep up with the adult's conversation, so you're rage-quitting. If you think this judgement is undeserved, then start acting like an adult and address each point EXACTLY as stated, with facts and/or compelling arguments, and without further embellishment. And if someone asks you to defend a statement, you'd better be able to back it up with something more solid than "I've already responded to that".

I challenge you to re-read all the posts over the last few days (as I have done 3 times now) and then see if you can spot what I'm talking about.

Or don't. I doubt you posses the self-awareness to notice it in any event, nor are you particularly concerned about it, in my estimate.

Call it a lazy excuse, I don't care

If the boot fits... Just remember: it was your choice.

Adam

[Nii]

Adam, you reply with yet another painfully lengthy and disrespectful post after I've said I don't want to argue with you. You haven't proven shit just because the other side of the debate doesn't want to debate with you anymore. But if it makes you feel good you can believe that.

[buffo]

Adam, you reply with yet another painfully lengthy and disrespectful post after I've said I don't want to argue with you.

That was my third shortest post in this thread to date, and you called it "painfully lengthy". Especially when you consider that my first two posts had one and three quoted sections, respectively. Compared to your multi-quote replies to me and others, I can't believe you're accusing me of being the first to be painfully lengthy.

If you don't want to argue, as Eric does not, that's fine. But you can't stop stretching the truth even when you exit, can you? It's almost pathological, isn't it?

You haven't proven shit just because the other side of the debate doesn't want to debate with you anymore.

On the contrary, you have chosen to ignore and or miss-categorize my arguments and then say "done". You don't really understand debating at all, let alone the concept of proof.

So yeah, no winners at all - not that the point of a debate is ever to win in the first place. Advancement of knowledge is the point. But clearly you don't understand that either.

But if it makes you feel good you can believe that.

You've previously said that you don't care what I believe, so this is redundant.

Adam

[Nii]

Hey buffo, can you reply to this post as well? Have to say it's impressive how well you manage to respond to nothing.

[planters]

Advancement of knowledge is the point. But clearly you don't understand that either.

Buffo, back off. You are disrespectful and this doesn't advance anything.