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

[Al Swearegen]

You are targeting everyone sharing a religion because some terrorists happen to be Muslim. You support a bigot who is saying that his proposed ban of ALL Muslims should go on until "this country can figure out what's going on" (not, btw, merely until the FBI has some vetting procedures in place; one would think they'd have something by now, considering that they've been at it a long time).

Legal experts disagree on the constitutionality of the proposal, btw, mainly because those arriving at the US borders may not be US citizens.

And me, and apparently quite a few others with me, I think it's bigoted and narrow-minded and moronic and actually quite scary, which is why I quoted Martin Niemöller. If you want to label that as emotional, so be it.

Yes people disagree with the constitutionality of detention centres that Australians utilise for refugees, but it has stood the test of time and has not caused to break down of any treaties.

Legal experts disagree on the constitutionality of the proposal, btw, mainly because those arriving at the US borders may not be US citizens.

Title 8 US code 1182 was written in 1952. Jimmy Carter used it to bar entry to the US by Iranians and to deport Iranians that were here. It is constitutional (as in it is IN the constitution). So you can fall over yourself to try to reinterpret the constitution and its meaning in the same way some "scholars" try to reinterpret the "right to bear arms" amendment, but its already there and has precedent.

I am NOT targeting anyone truth be told BUT if you are asking if the specifics of the idea Trump gave in his speeches (of fixing the vetting process and placing a freeze on Muslim immigration until they do), THAT sounds to me fine. It may be impractical and I would like to see how they would manage that but I am agreeing in principle with it.

Now if you are asking whether this concept targets ALL Muslims, well no it doesn't. If you are not trying to migrate to US it doesn't. If you are not a radical Muslim extremist it doesn't target you either, though due to the inability to vet you it will temporarily inconvenience you along with the radicalised extremists that it IS targeted against. You will have to wait a little longer or find a home elsewhere until the system is fixed.

You support a bigot who is saying that his proposed ban of ALL Muslims should go on until "this country can figure out what's going on"

Do I just?

Trump is a blowhard, arrogant, boorish, entitled, opinionated, idiot who gambles with his and other people's money and is happy to risk a company or personal bankrupt, he is VERY unsuited to being a President.

HOWEVER

Hilary is worse



Liar.



Criminal



Corrupt



Personal emails for state business?

Trump is awful. Hilary is evil.

See from my vantage point I have certainly said that Hillary is evil and Donald Trump is awful....awful is hardly "I support Donald Trump". Agreeing in principle with a position he had on an idea is NOT supporting HIM. Idiots believe this black and white "If you believe something that someone says you believe in them and everything they say"

Are you an idiot? Yes or No?

The fact he has at one point said "All Muslims this or that" means what? Did I agree or disagree with those statements or have an opinion on them at all? No? Either pretty disingenuous or pretty fucking stupid you keeping on bring up something I have not had an opinion on, right? Yes or No?

(not, btw, merely until the FBI has some vetting procedures in place; one would think they'd have something by now, considering that they've been at it a long time)

"Not BTW" How about you make it up as you go along? He said he wants to to fix vetting system and that he wants to place a freeze on things until it is fixed.

You CAN by all means argue that there should be some idea of timelines or how he will measure this or what constituents improvement.....and i have already done this myself. I think the idea is fine in principle but I want specifics too. I may choose to agree on them or not.

What would be idiotic, is to say "Well he did say that, but he didn't mean it. No the fact that the FBI are apparently getting some things wrong, means they have no way of ever improving things, and if they are not improving things then there is no way he will ever, ever, ever, lift the freeze." 

But is the vetting system and the due diligence of FBI up to scratch? The short answer is no and you, yourself have acknowledged that they are not really doing a bang up job.

If Hillary walking after their investigations was not enough recent fodder, then certainly this should be a concern

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/refugee/rhq/rhqapr16.pdf

One in every five refugees settle in Minnesota

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2016/advising-travelers-with-specific-needs/newly-arrived-immigrants-refugees

and

http://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/measles/index.php

22 new cases of Measles.

Yup, and if we tack this on to the nearly 1000 US based Islamic extremist cases that are currently active investigations and the fact that both Omar Mateen and the San Bernadino whilst referred and investigated were ultimately dropped as active cases for investigation....yes they definitely need an overhaul.

And me, and apparently quite a few others with me, I think it's bigoted and narrow-minded and moronic and actually quite scary, which is why I quoted Martin Niemöller. If you want to label that as emotional, so be it.

Appeal to popularity?

You have yet to actually show me what IS bigoted and narrow-minded NOR a better alternative. This is because you are emotional. You

• Making the claim I was bigoted
• Like your claim that I support Donald Trump
• Like your continued want to bring up his campaign book and what he has said on immigration after the position I agreed in principle with and trying to tie me to THAT position for some reason
• Like your want to try to point out impracticality to his idea that I have already bought up

 is demonstrative that it was only ever an emotional argument.

IF it was a rational argument you would have: been honest, attacked what I said not what I didn't, shown why what I said was incorrect, and perhaps shown a better alternative. You did none of this. You went straight to "bigot" and then when you found this untenable tried to introduce stuff that had no bearing on what I said to try to pad your position. Saying I support Trump rather than I support a position of Trump and dislike him less than Hillary, may sound stronger but it is incorrect.
Saying that I agree with later or re-clarified positions of his may again make a stronger case (IF the new position is a more difficult one to defend) but is simply introducing a brand new position and trying to substitute it for the one I offered an opinion on. Its a bait and switch. Its weak and you are caught doing it. I will not be baited by it or allow you to switch it. Why did you multiple times attempt to bait and switch even after I demonstrated that you were doing this and clarified exactly what I was and was not defending? Being that you knew and did it any way, are you an idiot or dishonest AND an idiot?

No Odeon, you get to argue the argument I made, not the one you wanted me to make, and not for the intentions you would have preferred I had but for the ones I had. Call me a bigot, you get to back that shit up. I do not care that you got emotional and made your position harder to rationalise or argue. Back your shit up. No more being disingenuous, dishonest, or stupid. It is not cute. You do not get to change the argument to better suit, and you do not act stupid or confused to obfuscate your way away from dumb, emotional claims you made. None of that is backing yourself. At Intensitysquared.com you ought to back yourself and as commander in chief of this little site, you ought to lead from the front. Call ANY of your members here bigots. None of us are shrinking violets. This site is predicated on free speech BUT it has one rule...back yourself. Not hide, not bait and switch to easy arguments to defend, not lie, not be disingenuous, not redefine words or phrases to what you want them to mean when called on it. Back yourself.

[odeon]

Advocating to temporarily stop the immigration of an entire group of people defined by their religion because of a vanishingly small minority supposedly belonging to that group might be terrorists is bigoted, like it or not. There is no proof that the ban would help stop terrorism, but a lot to suggest it wouldn't.

There, I've backed it up. Again.

Oh, and Trump said:

Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.

[Al Swearegen]

Advocating to temporarily stop the immigration of an entire group of people defined by their religion because of a vanishingly small minority supposedly belonging to that group might be terrorists is bigoted, like it or not. There is no proof that the ban would help stop terrorism, but a lot to suggest it wouldn't.

There, I've backed it up. Again.

Oh, and Trump said:

Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.

I will have to take your word that this is what he said. I have little context naturally but I suspect that it is not something I need to defend or comment on right? He can think what he likes about whatever, I may or may not agree with any of these positions and they may or may not have anything to do with the statement of his I DO agree with. (I will not agree with everything he says because he said it, right?)

Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.

Most of this is word salad but the part I bolded seems to be identifying radical Muslim extremists IF that helps you at all. Not sure if it does?

Advocating to temporarily stop the immigration of an entire group of people defined by their religion because of a vanishingly small minority supposedly belonging to that group might be terrorists is bigoted, like it or not. There is no proof that the ban would help stop terrorism, but a lot to suggest it wouldn't.

When was it ever suggested that it will stop terrorism. I do not think I EVER made that claim? Are you trying AGAIN to introduce a bait and switch here?

How about we try these two questions:

"Would improving the vetting system so that radical Muslim extremists that we know have been concealed in Muslim refugee and broader Muslim immigrant groups by ISIS and other radical Islamic groups, help reduce the opportunities for such infiltration and reduce the numbers getting in and through?"

(The answer is Yes)

"Would placing a freeze on Muslim immigrants whilst these systems are being upgraded (and acknowledging that the reason for the system upgrade is explicitly BECAUSE the inability to effectively tell moderate from radical Muslim) be a better idea than not placing a freeze and working with an ineffective system in the meantime whilst knowing that the vetting process is subpar?

(The answer is Yes)

Now you can say this targets all Muslims (again) and it doesn't. If you are a moderate Muslim immigrant and you wish to immigrate, are you able to immigrate? Yes. If you are a moderate Muslim immigrant and you wish to immigrate to America specifically and no other country then yes you will have to wait until the system is fixed. After the freeze is lifted, you will be able to go in knowing that the chances of the the radical Islamic extremists (who are no doubt the type of people you would want left behind), be be vetted more critically and have less chance to join you on making America your new home.

There does not seem ANY bigotry there. IF you are saying "B...b...but when you are fixing the vetting system that can't tell moderate Muslim from radical Muslim extremist, you are preventing the moderate Muslim from immigrating" Yes, I know and THAT is PRECISELY WHY it is something that must be fixed and need to be frozen whilst it is being fixed.

But perhaps you need to come at it another way.
Assume that all I have said is correct:

• Big problem.
• Vetting system needs overhaul.
• Letting in Muslim immigrants without being able to check whether they are radical or not.
• ISIS has confirmed they are infiltrating Muslim communities with their members and have been doing this a good while.
• FBI isoverworked with 900 active cases of US based radicalised Islamic extremism.
• They are dropping the ball on the ones they are looking up now with devastating effects.
• America does not want any more problems with radicalised Muslim extremists.

THEN assuming this is all correct, how would you reduce the amount of radicalised Muslim extremists  coming into America WHILST the system is being upgraded to differentiate moderate from radical to moderate Muslim BESIDES A) Placing a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration to US UNTIL this is fixed (Something I see as a good temporary fix and quite a rational approach) OR B) Do nothing and hope that in the time you are fixing this problem, that no radical Muslim extremist will come through and cause problems that they would not otherwise have done if (A) had been enacted.

If you have a C I am all ears.

So with bigotry being "an intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself", who am I intolerant to? It is not Muslims, so who is it to? Back yourself remember? YOU made the claim and you have yet to back this. Even as you say yo do.

[odeon]

C Not do it because it is a pointless exercise in populism and hugely bigoted. It could actually make things worse.

In other words, you're wrong.

[odeon]

And I'm done with this now, as this discussion is as pointless as what you support in it. Good luck against the windmills.

['andersom']

I'm in favour of windmills. 
They bring me energy and awesome views.

[Al Swearegen]

C Not do it because it is a pointless exercise in populism and hugely bigoted. It could actually make things worse.

In other words, you're wrong.

Well C would indicate a want to give a different and better solution to the issue and defend your charge of bigotry, which you have failed to do. I have been pretty open that I see an issue and that I see his doing something to counter this as a positive. It is not perfect, and I understand this. It has impracticalities BUT it IS better than doing nothing. If Nothing is what YOU have to counter, then admit to this. You have nothing, you are just overly emotional irrational and want to throw buzzwords around.

Again, IF you use the charge of being  bigot (and bigotry IS ""an intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself"") then who am I intolerant of. IF It IS radical Muslim extremists, then I raise my hand. If someone else then show me who and why? Making the claim is easy. Backing it is something else entirely. Back yourself Odeon.

I can you being pretty interested in others backing their arguments and positions on Intensitysquared. You as someone who saw real benefit in the "one rule" of IntensitySquared. I am happy to show him again and again demand that others back themselves. Its interesting to see you do not apply this standard to yourself.

Easy to call me a bigot when I present an opinion you do not like (or perhaps understand). Its the easiest thing in the world. But when all you have to counter is things I have not said, positions I have not taken and doubling down on unsubstantiated claims, that sure as shit is not "backing yourself". You are stupid if you believe that IS what backing yourself is. Its certainly not the standard you have asked others for.