[walruskkkch]

When the government won't protect you. And they actively work to cover for, and protect those who wish you harm, Americans have only one recourse left. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[trlrtrash13]

Originally Posted by moomin

Just don't be all surprised when the rubes and the know-nothings in flyover land don't follow your drum masters willingly.

And how many of those terrorists came from a land that only exists in Disney movies? Do all Disney countries need go be bombed, or just some of them? Have you already been prescribed a pill for this illness, or have you not yet spoken these thoughts to your shrink?

[moomin]

Confess - you were delighted to pin massive ignorance on TP and Trump voters for Disney bombing, but when it turned out that your team was just as ignorant, only their instinct was surrender instead of fight it wasn't all that funny any more. And now you're busy trying to make it into a huge moral and strategic difference - bombing imaginary targets or importing imaginary terrorists. It is rather entertaining.

[trlrtrash13]

Originally Posted by moomin

Confess - you were delighted to pin massive ignorance on TP and Trump voters for Disney bombing, but when it turned out that your team was just as ignorant, only their instinct was surrender instead of fight it wasn't all that funny any more. And now you're busy trying to make it into a huge moral and strategic difference - bombing imaginary targets or importing imaginary terrorists. It is rather entertaining.

No, moomin. I'm not a Democrat so that's not my side and I don't think like an idiot so there is nothing to confess. Just try... I know you've never done this before, but try to follow some logic here.



Let's say a polling company calls and asks me if I support bombing a country I have never heard of. I would say "Is that even a real country" but they would decline to answer so as not to lead me. I would in turn decline to answer, but if they insisted on an answer I would say "no" because I don't have enough information to bomb them. If they asked would I accept refugees from that country I would again answer "no" because again, I've never heard of them.



Now, if you honestly believe that, given the choice of bombing or accepting immigrants from a country that you know nothing about that there is a preferred, better, or more logical choice you're an idiot. It's called a trick question for a reason. There is no correct answer.



What if you bomb them but it turns out that they have a death star and they take the planet out with them? I know those don't actually exist, but again neither does the country. What if the refugees are fleeing a drought, and while the have no food they come in ships made of solid gold and loaded to the gills with unicorns that have ivory horns studded with diamonds and, when removed, the unicorn instantly farts fairy dust and grows another horn? Don't say unicorns don't exist, because again, neither does the country.



So you, dear moomin, are the moron that chose to die in planetary destruction rather than to accept gifts of gold, ivory, and diamonds from someone who sounds like they might be Muslim. Poll question. Because you're an idiot, or because you hate unicorns?

[moomin]

Obama made me hate unicorns. Any country featuring unicorns must be not only defeated but utterly eradicated.

And I'm happy to hear that you'd neither bomb nor accept refugees from a country you've never heard of. That puts you well in front of a vast majority of your countrymen who, I am sure, could not name even half the countries which America currently is bombing, nor half of those from whom America is currently accepting refugees. You know, all non-imaginary and stuff.

[trlrtrash13]

The bottom line is we shouldn't be accepting any immigrants from any nation that has lost control of any part of their country. You can't properly vet immigrants if the government may or may not be in control of the region they are coming from. If Trump had made that case instead of just saying "Muslims" he would've made a case that is more reasonable and has a much better chance of blocking the people he wants to block.

[moomin]

He supposedly wants to block mohammedans, not Ukrainians from Russian-controlled territory. Your suggestions would epic fail that.

[walruskkkch]

Lost control of "Any" part of their country? Gonna need definin' that thar clause. DOes inner city Detroit count? I won't even mention parts of Paris. That be France pardner, not Texas.

[walruskkkch]

Beware.

When The New York Times tells the rubes that it’s time to hand in their guns, when The Washington Post suggests that Jesus is ashamed of them for not welcoming Syrian refugees the week after a terrorist attack, people react not because they love guns or hate Syrians, but because their natural urge to being told by coastal liberals that they’re awful people and that they should just obey and shut up is to issue a certain Anglo-Saxon verb and pronoun combination with all the vigor they can muster. And if they can’t say it themselves, they’ll find someone who will, even if it’s a crude jerk from Queens who can’t make a point without raising his pinky like a Mafia goon explaining the vig to you after you’ve had a bad day at the track.

[trlrtrash13]

Originally Posted by moomin

He supposedly wants to block mohammedans, not Ukrainians from Russian-controlled territory. Your suggestions would epic fail that.

ISIS controls part of Syria and Iraq, ISIL controls part of Lebanon. Parts of Lybia, Afghanistan, and several other Islamic states are under the control of terrorists or warlords. These are the people we should be keeping out.



As for Paris and Detroit, both are still controlled by their respective governments. I'm not talking about social breakdown, I'm talking about convening legal authority.