Not that you are able to back yourself on your site for the things you say...

[odeon]

Lots of things you've posted lately are amusing, in that slightly embarrassing way when somebody who's clearly not thought things through nevertheless opens his mouth. Things like the Trump idea you support, the one that you got wrong (don't know how but you did it), and how you have still to explain how that would be better than all those things that actually would help.

The fact that you support one of the greatest bigots the US has produced in later years is actually mostly sad. And here you are, claiming that I have changed...

[Al Swearegen]

Lots of things you've posted lately are amusing, in that slightly embarrassing way when somebody who's clearly not thought things through nevertheless opens his mouth. Things like the Trump idea you support, the one that you got wrong (don't know how but you did it), and how you have still to explain how that would be better than all those things that actually would help.

The fact that you support one of the greatest bigots the US has produced in later years is actually mostly sad. And here you are, claiming that I have changed...

May be amusing for you and that in itself points to a change in you.

I am not sure how much you have paid attention to Politicians lately or in the last 40 years but sometimes they lie .



Its almost an expectation for example that the policies that politicians often promote to get elected never see the light of day once elected. It really ought not be the case but it is.

Sometimes Politicians will speak vaguely to give themselves room to "walk things back" or reclarify themselves or through intermediaries. Here is a prime example:

http://time.com/4390961/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-fbi-email-probe/

So from this we understand that "whatever" the FBI comes up with, that she will accept their judgement and soundness on that and place no other filter on it and rule on their determination, right?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lynch-taking-step-back-clinton-000000134.html

Hang on. So she is NOT deferring completely to the FBI. She is accepting their findings in as accepting the truth and veracity but will decide regardless?

Two totally different positions. Both her positions. Both in respect to the same idea.  You may have a position on either. Which one was false and which was true? If you supported the first then you need not support the second and visa versa. What is more it would be the height of dishonesty and stupidity for someone to come along after the second statement was made and criticise another person of agreeing with the first position.

Does this make sense? Why the Fuck does it NOT make sense? The Odeon of a year ago would have understood this and I would not be needing to lay this all out.

Like Loretta, Donald had an idea and position taken. In his talks he gave a position, an idea, a concept. One I agree in principle with. Hot on the heels of the Orlando shootings, with an eye to having seen what other Islamic terrorist activities have happened in recent times in Europe, such as Brussels and Paris AND knowing that there are 900 U.S. BASED Islamic extremist active cases with the FBI, Donald couches the idea that maybe there are too few controls and we need to place a freeze on all Muslim immigration until America can better ensure the checks and balances of the Muslims coming into America to live are the ones who want to make America their home and not people wishing to come in to harm America from the inside.

I agree with that. We have EXCELLENT border security in Australia and we take border protection very seriously. Someone coming in illegally is going to find themselves in a detention centre. Someone committing crimes will not be given more favour based on being a refugee or an immigrant. Someone outstaying their welcome will be deported. Tough immigration and border control laws are not a crazy concept. You want to protect your country's citizens you are allowed to be particular and tough.

Now agreeing with this first position is not me getting him wrong. This is what he said and so even implying that I did get it wrong is stupid. You however have repeated over and over that I did get it wrong, for reasons that are not readily apparent. Like the example I provided of Loretta Lynch, Donald Trump has expanded and further clarified his position (you mentioned his site's position). You are expecting I have a position on this new clarification. But more than this you are saying because I had an opinion on the first position, I got it wrong because he clarified his position later into a new position that was different, and so I "apparently" must acknowledge I was wrong and endorse and agree with the second position.

Its really stupid. Dishonest and stupid.

This is how that plays with the Lynch example.
After the first position. Me: "Yay, good stuff. Lynch is too partisan to the Obama administration. He is her employer and is endorsing the person she is investigating. Let the FBI do their job and take their judgement."
You: "No that is completely wrong. I don't know how you got it that wrong. Clearly from this Yahoo article she is still the decider and is not meekly accepting the FBI findings. You are so wrong. She is still the Attorney General and where the buck stops. You are after all a dyed in the wool supporter of the US Attorney General and you agree with everything she says even though you get it so wrong hahaha"
Me: "No I did not get it wrong. Agreeing with a position of Lynch's does not make me a fan of her every pronouncement. No I do not need to support this new clarification, much less defend it. The fact she has clarified it does not have to change my opinions on the original position."

This is the sort of thing that is happening with my opinion on what Trump said. I know he will constantly reclarify things said. I can choose to agree with him on whatever or choose not to. Imagining that I am somehow tied to his every utterance or belief system is beyond insane.

As for me explaining how things will help. I have done that a number of times and you disagreed. I do not care that you disagreed but pretending I have not explained is simply you being dishonest again. Why are you being dishonest so much in recent times? The Odeon of past wasn't. What is going on?

Again, it is not something Odeon of a year ago would have done but then a LOT of dumb, dishonest or weak as piss stuff you have said on here in more recent times certainly dispels the expectation of a rational, honest and smart individual you were. I was disappointed. I am not so much now. It is the new status quo. If I am in your consideration, changed, it is due to you. You chose for a reaction and got one. Now this is what you have. Your plan worked.

[odeon]

Another amusing and completely misguided post. I'd love to know how the ban on Muslims entering the US is thought by you and Trump to in any way affect the active 900 terrorism investigation cases--of which most, but not all, are IS-related--but that's probably hoping for too much.

In the meanwhile, that figure is dwarfed by the current gun violence numbers, the vast majority of which have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. These numbers could be addressed by measures supported by a majority of the population but blocked by the pro-gun legislative body.

So yes, your posts are amusing but also quite sad because of how misguided they are.

[Al Swearegen]

Another amusing and completely misguided post. I'd love to know how the ban on Muslims entering the US is thought by you and Trump to in any way affect the active 900 terrorism investigation cases--of which most, but not all, are IS-related--but that's probably hoping for too much.

In the meanwhile, that figure is dwarfed by the current gun violence numbers, the vast majority of which have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. These numbers could be addressed by measures supported by a majority of the population but blocked by the pro-gun legislative body.

So yes, your posts are amusing but also quite sad because of how misguided they are.

Laugh, lie, project, or do as you feel fit.

Its pretty clear the answer to that question, isn't it? I mean think about it. They have 900 potential Islamic Extremist active cases in America. That is by Comey's admission. By his own admission they had investigated Omar Mateen twice. By Clare Lopez's own admission, there is glaring problems when accepting refugees from counties such as Syria because not only is ISIS actively placing their members in with refugees as a form of radicalised hijra but the authorities ability to do due diligence and cross reference potential immigrants is compromised with the fact that the records that could conceivably be available are difficult to cross-check in warring regions from a nation or a state's infrastructure.

So increasing the amount of people you have coming in will have exactly two effects. More decent Muslims (majority) wanting to escape the horrors of war and make America their new home AND an increase of poorly checked radicalised extremist Muslims (dangerous minority)  with violence and harm to America on their minds.

Keeping it the same will mean that they are coming in at the same rate.

Placing a freeze on it will mean that more focus can be done to improve vetting systems and to clean up the 900 active cases, before the freeze is lifted and (with better checks in place) they start accepting Muslim immigrants again.

But this is what I have already mentioned and you disagreed with it then too. I disagree with your assessment and I did then too. I believe your open borders "Come on through", flash them a smile and send the nastier element to where your women and children are swimming, is wrong. You need to be a little particular and stringent. It is a nation's prerogative. No one has a right to immigrant anywhere they want because they want to. It is a request, that may be accepted or denied. Its important that there is a real and clear acknowledgement and understanding that it is not a right, it is a privilege.

Out of interest if Omar had decided to kill those gays in the nightclub and had no access to a gun and used instead fire or a pipe bomb or a chemical fume attack or what have you, how exactly would gun control measure either stopped him hurting so many OR stopped him wanting to kill gays?

There is nothing misguided about my post, it is just that you are incapable of understanding it.

[odeon]

A couple of things you have still to understand (hence "misguided"):

Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did. Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.

Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy. But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.

I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.

[Al Swearegen]

A couple of things you have still to understand (hence "misguided"):

Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did. Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.

Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy. But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.

I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.

....and you went with lie.

I am going to ask you a serious question. "Are you an idiot?" Don't be too quick in answering. let me make a quick case

Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did.

As I have mentioned this in several posts that this IS a position of his "to ban all Muslims" and is on his website as you pointed out HOWEVER (pay attention this time) his initial position before the reclarification (that he gave in speeches) was that he wished to place a freeze on Muslim Immigrants. I agreed in principle with the initial position. I have not vouched an opinion for this new position (as a result of him reclarifying an older position) but you seem to want me to agree or disavow it.

This is NOT "getting it wrong" is it? Only an idiot would suggest that, right?

As mentioned If person X makes position A and person Y agrees with person X on position A, that in itself is COMPLETELY separate to if Person X then reclarifies or alters position A to come up to a new position B.
Given this, does person Y need to agree with position B? Can they if they wish?

Too hard?

You seem incapable of seeing that agreeing with one position that a person takes is NOT IN ANY WAY rubberstamping everything they say forever and ever, based in the fact they agree with them on a or even several positions.

Some may say that is lazy thinking or even intellectual dishonesty. I call that being an idiot? What would you call that?

Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.

Suggesting motive is one thing. We all do it and we can second guess people. Depending on our intellectual rigour and instinct we may have a good strike rate of getting it right.

You are not suggesting, you are trying to make a fact based assertion. When exactly did you last chat with Donald Trump? You have made a few assertions here. Can you please tell me if not having a conversion with Donald, did you speak to his aides? Did you perhaps have mindreading equipment?

No? Just throwing out big assertions as fact based claims based on bullshit and expecting me to just nod my head? Do you think THAT is idiotic?

Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.

I am not bigoted and you have not made a case for that. Best you can say at present without trying to lie or pad your assertions with bullshit is to say that I agreed with what Donald trump said about Muslim immigration. I think that in cases where a threat does seem to be present in ANY group, nation, religion or whatever then there HAS to be an upgrade to the security to check this.
Now we can disagree as to the degree of threat or how good the current security is all day. but I have good reason to think that the last few years has given rise to a lot more attacks on European soil by Muslim radical extremists and this has aligned with the relaxed border policies. I also know that 900 active cases with the FBI of US based Islamic extremist issues, and apparent difficulties cross-referencing incoming migrants due to them fleeing a nation under conflict and with poor infrastructure and records access. I also know that the Orlando shooter was checked out twice with the FBI and no apparent action taken against him. They dropped the ball in my belief.

So I have my reasoning for suspecting that there is a heightened risk and poor methods of vetting potential risks. Therefore I believe this cannot be addressed by carrying on business as normal. IF there is a way to hold this process and tightened up and better rework the vetting methods (and Hell maybe directing some resources to clearing up the 900 cases before another Orlando gunman gets away from them), then it makes sense this ought to be pursued.

That is not bigoted. Only an idiot would think so.

As to whether this idea could work out in a practical way rather than being a good theory, I don't know and would be interested how this could be done. I see a lot of problems in the practicalities and possible implementation, including belief of Islam being exactly that. Denouncing you are a Muslim to come in for example would seem to sidestep this freeze.

I agree in principle with the idea and happy to look at other ideas as to solving the problem, but not at all interested in saying it is not a problem. For all your talk of falling furniture death, I think that would be little concern to Parisians after the Paris attacks for example. IF some radical Islamic extremist attack happens in Sweden do I have your permission to make some off-hand remark about at least they weren't squashed by a bookcase? No?

So being that I am not bigoted the statement ....

Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy.

.... makes no sense. I do not agree with what you effectively have said you are disagreeing with and so how could I agree to something I inherently disagree with being equivalent or comparable to something else? No, it would be idiotic to expect I would give such an assertion any credibility. You may wish to take a run up and try again.

But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.

Speaking about what one does not know, you make the accusation of me lying.
The fact that my suggestion that America can minimise attacks on its citizens by tightening its borders and freezing Muslim immigration until such time that it can improve its vetting systems and clear up its 900 active US based cases of Islamic extremism, you call bigoted.
You suggested rather than further addressing the threat that the threat was less great than falling furniture and that there was no issue in Sweden despite your open border policies and despite the fact that I mentioned the heightened female rape (and yes your rebuke still showed at more than double that of US and UK - which again is higher than Australian rates) and the pool crisis both of which made international news (in fact now your music festivals the last few years running have been targeted [30 this last one just gone] by groups of foreign men in groups of 10 isolating and sexually assaulting teenage girls - sound familiar - Cologne) you waved it off as of no real concern.

So at this stage, we can agree or disagree but you are demonstrating by your response an acceptance of the status quo in Sweden in respect to immigration and the movement of people and you back this by pounding on about treaties. So you honestly think that it somehow seems like me lying about you agreeing with the open border policies of Sweden (especially as I contrasted them against the border policies of Australia). No you only would think this if you were an idiot. I don't know that you honestly do, maybe you are just lying again.

I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.

Title 8 US codes 1182

Its constitutional.

They have made various arguments against our detention Centres. Not buying it.

So now far from ME being misguided or "needing to understand".... "are you an idiot?"

If not that is fine, how did you get EVERYTHING so very wrong.

[Al Swearegen]

Here is a bit of different point of view from someone else with far more social capital than I, who is in the know about the threat of migrating Muslim extremists.

[odeon]

This is typically you--you still mistake quantity for an actual argument.

Banning Muslims from entering the US is bigotry because it's an ineffectual action against a group of people based on misguided fears and wholly without any support from any kind of logical reasoning. Don't like being a bigot? You can change.

[Al Swearegen]

This is typically you--you still mistake quantity for an actual argument.

Banning Muslims from entering the US is bigotry because it's an ineffectual action against a group of people based on misguided fears and wholly without any support from any kind of logical reasoning. Don't like being a bigot? You can change.

Incorrect. You have "getting it wrong", down to a fine art.

At this stage, reverting continually to the argument I NEVER made about Banning Muslims from the US is EITHER you being a moron or dishonest. Which? You choose one? Happy with either.

You do not want to be liar or to be dishonest? You should be able to change. If it is stupidity, I do not have good news for you.

Now if you want to talk about my agreement with the idea of temporarily freezing Muslim immigration whilst measures are done to increase the quality of vetting immigrants and taking care of US Based Islamic extremism - then THAT is NOT Bigoted. I know you believe it, but it isn't. I know that you think that if processes are not up to speed too bad. I don't

You've yet to make a case. "I disagree" is not "you are a bigot". You are an idiot if you think so.

You do not believe in the extent of the problem of Muslim radical extremism being as big an issue. You think falling furniture is a bigger problem. I think your reading of things is bereft of all rationality. I long to hear a report that is as big in the media and international news reporting on the hateful acts of dangerous sofa beds as I do the acts of radicalised Muslim extremists. I do not think it is going to happen.
Now you perhaps feel similarly about me? (God only knows really knows what passes through your mind lately?)

None of that is a case for bigotry. In the same way that Australia does not allow illegal immigrants straight into society and they spend years in Detention Centres is not bigotry.

I have shown the Constitutionality of this and I have shown the reasoning and I have even had a world famous ex-Muslim scholar and activist echoing the real issue with radicalised Islamic extremism with hijrah Migration. You wish to shrug shoulder and default to "You are just a racist", makes you at the very least deliberately ignorant and a liar at worst.

Make a case for me being a bigot, but trying to impress me with positions I have not taken will not do it.
Neither will showing that you have a different point of view.
Neither will saying that the vetting process is better than I think it is. Nor will treating the issue of guns in the US like they are the be all and end all of radicalised Muslim domestic violence (take away their access to assault rifles and you stop their ability - or perhaps their desire - to kill masses of Americans).
Nor will stating that the threat of radicalised Muslim extremists within refugee and illegal Muslim immigrant populations is minimal or minimised .

All of this will certainly point to a difference of opinion. But it does not show that I am a bigot. Are you going to make a case for me being a bigot? My Muslim friends do not believe I am and I wonder whether I am better listening to them or listening to you? Maybe THEY are bigots against Muslims too?

[odeon]

I've already explained why your opinions amount to bigotry. You, on the other hand, have yet to show how banning the Muslims (all of them is what Trump says, remember, and you think his ideas are reasonable) from entering the US would help anything, and obviously you won't since you can't. Only an idiot would disagree.

As for the furniture that kills, it's not me saying so, it is a somewhat bizarre fact. There are lots of other such examples, of course, and one of the more obvious ones is, wait for it... gun-related violence.

Which you don't want to hear about. Apparently you'd rather stop Muslims than stop a very real problem that is killing tens of thousands of people every year. And that's just stupid.

[Al Swearegen]

I've already explained why your opinions amount to bigotry. You, on the other hand, have yet to show how banning the Muslims (all of them is what Trump says, remember, and you think his ideas are reasonable) from entering the US would help anything, and obviously you won't since you can't. Only an idiot would disagree.

As for the furniture that kills, it's not me saying so, it is a somewhat bizarre fact. There are lots of other such examples, of course, and one of the more obvious ones is, wait for it... gun-related violence.

Which you don't want to hear about. Apparently you'd rather stop Muslims than stop a very real problem that is killing tens of thousands of people every year. And that's just stupid.

You, on the other hand, have yet to show how banning the Muslims (all of them is what Trump says, remember, and you think his ideas are reasonable) from entering the US would help anything, and obviously you won't since you can't.

And.....this is what I have EVER argued. No? Who the fuck are you arguing then? And I think his ideas are reasonable. Only a absolute idiot would think that anyone would agree with everything someone else said or would ever say. Are you that absolute idiot?

Yes or no?

You have yet to show why I will have any position on Trump wanting to ban all Muslims from entering the US. This is not his initial position nor one that I have proffered an opinion on. Regardless of whether he says that now it is not what he initially said and no what I have said seemed like a reasonable position. And no, at this point it is not simply you misunderstanding because I have explained this point to you three or four times.

So are you an idiot to keep bringing up a point that I have given no opinion and call me a bigot for views that I have not offered? YES. The only other alternative is that you are lying and that you did understand but want to double down on your dishonesty. Either way I am along for the ride and seeing where you will go with this.

Only an idiot would disagree.

Moot point as I never had that position and not inclined to defend it or offer an opinion on it, and only an idiot would imagine that I may feel obliged to do so. It would also need an idiot to assume that if someone agrees with someone else on one thing that they say, that they are best mates or agree with them on everything they say or will say.

I've already explained why your opinions amount to bigotry.

No you have been a little outraged over what Trump put on his site about banning Muslims into America. This is a position of his. One of at least three that he has had around this topic. You are offended over it and believe it is bigoted. It may or may not be.

I have yet to see you make any effort to show MY bigotry.

Again, only an idiot would say so. In fact it makes it harder to do so on the basis that I have been ABSOLUTELY clear on what I agree with and why.

As for the furniture that kills, it's not me saying so, it is a somewhat bizarre fact. There are lots of other such examples, of course, and one of the more obvious ones is, wait for it... gun-related violence.

Again, I will ask this very simple question and I want you to give me an answer.
"We have seen that with radical Muslims extremists immigrating through a radicalised hijrah, increased terrorist actions in the heart of Europe, such as Brussels and Paris and the like, so when they occur in Sweden am I able to say "Well considering the risk that falling furniture has, at least they were not squashed by a sofa bed"?"

I mean at the moment Sweden is considered internationally as the "Rape capital of the World" and has also made headlines recently for suspiciously Taharrush type incidents at Swedish music festivals (most recently in Karlstad) and in your swimming pools. But falling furniture is a real bastard.

You know what neither falling furniture nor guns has? An ideology. A mindset. A degree of hate and a wish to do harm to others.

Which you don't want to hear about. Apparently you'd rather stop Muslims than stop a very real problem that is killing tens of thousands of people every year. And that's just stupid.

No, I would rather not treat gun violence as the REASON FOR the attacks on Orlando. It was a method not a reason for harm. It is entirely up to the Americans to do what ever they like about guns. Australians came up with a solution we predominantly agreed with. Suits us.

Trying to obfuscate one issue of radicalised Muslim extremism and the threat it presents with gun control is simply dishonest. Omar Mateen used a gun, take away his ability to legally own a gun and he could have got one illegally. Take away his method to ever obtain a gun and those people in the nightclub would still not have been safe because he hated them and targeted them. He would have killed or hurt them through arson, chemical attack, pipe bombs or something else.

You can make a separate argument about how much you hate guns it has fuck all to do with ideology of hate or whether hateful radicalised Muslims extremists will kill.

How many people were saved in the Paris attacks as a result of their gun controls? How many lives were saved by virtue that guns were not allowed?

Your arguments are redundant. You are being stupid. I would like to think you are deliberately so.

[odeon]

I love it how gun nutters always add things like "then the killer would have obtained the weapon illegally".

I also love it when bigots attempt to justify their bigotry by referring to the dangers of radical Islam.

Both are just so laughably weak, devoid of any rationality. You've come a long way lately, mate.

[Al Swearegen]

I love it how gun nutters always add things like "then the killer would have obtained the weapon illegally".

I also love it when bigots attempt to justify their bigotry by referring to the dangers of radical Islam.

Both are just so laughably weak, devoid of any rationality. You've come a long way lately, mate.

I love seeing your willingness to dismiss out of hand anything you do not wish to consider as bigotry.

You have accused me of being a bigot and the only two reason I have seen for it are one position Donald Trump has expressed towards Muslims that I have  not proffered an opinion on, and because you said so. Again seems the lack of rationality is on your end not mine.

As for what seems to be a shot at me being a "gun nut" seems to be illogical in the extreme. Do I have a gun? No? Do I read up on guns? No? Do I have any relationship with guns? Am I from a country where guns are in great supply? Is my culture one that holds the right to own guns as almost sacrosanct? No? Have I ever even fired a gun? Yes...a couple of times in 1983.

"Gun nut"? Pretty stupid, huh?

I mean all of the above is pretty fucking stupid. The only thing you are laughing at is your self as your opinions quoted above have no bearing on me and make you look like an idiot.

That all said, let's humour you at least a little. Sure nothing that you said applies to me but I will entertain it anyhow.

You love how radical Muslim extremists get weapons anyhow? You love how other people believe they do or they can? Well...okay? So was the weapons in the Paris attacks legal? Obtained legally? What about the weapons used in London attacks? Brussels? Boston? Help me out here.

So you think perhaps that if a radical Muslim extremist who targeted in advance gays at a nightclub to kill, that taking away his legal right to own a gun would magic away the threat? That sounds silly to me but its your chance to tell me how these nutters are wrong.

(Personally what Americans choose to do about their guns is on them. I simply offer the opinion that someone with murder on their mind and who goes to the extent to target and plan a mass murder will likely not give up if guns are taken away. As much as guns may or may not be an issue in America, it is an absolutely different issue than the threat of radicalised Muslim extremists. It is a cop out of the highest order to try to relate the two to obfuscate the two separate issues).

That leaves the dangers of radical Islam. No danger, huh? Oh well. There we go. No need to even check passports now. Thank God. See I thought that the Brussels and Paris attacks were real it seems it was all a prank. Good one all. Yes, America ought not even check the records for incoming immigrants who are Muslim. Let them all in. 900 active cases of active US-Based radical Islamist extremists? No problem, drop the cases, that was obviously not an issue because some guy on I2 proclaimed it so.

No? All of that would be a BAD idea? What? Their IS a threat and you just do not believe it is as big as some do? Well, well, that hardly makes the case for being bigoted or not does it? Only a moron or a liar would say so.

Which are you Odeon?

[odeon]

Still lying and misrepresenting what I say, I see. Also love it how you ignore the numbers, how you conveniently avoid the hard facts. Here's another one for you to avoid:



Only an idiot would ignore the numbers in this one, don't you think?

Of course, only an idiot would only ever try to do anything about only one of them, but banning all Muslims from entering the US is about as effective as banning IKEA from importing their furniture to prevent those nasty furniture-related deaths.

Only an idiot, and a bigoted one at that, would propose anything like that.

[odeon]

Oh, and go right ahead. A few thousand words in your next post should be enough to hide how embarrassing your opinions really are.