Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
LastLast
  1. #181
    Deleted
    I like how with Muslims we have to qualify the religion with "moderate" to signify they are the ones not likely to kill us. Britain is screwed and I can't for the life of me understand why certain citizens and politicians see this "multicultural" rubbish as being a good thing. Do they hate themselves and their own, successful culture so much that they actively want to destroy it? Muslims are not compatible with western society and actively hate western values.

    In a Survey done by ICM on British Muslims:

    52% believe being gay should be illegal
    25% want Sharia law
    40% said wives should always obey their husband
    27% said they had some sympathy with the Charlie Hebdo attacks in paris

    Hell, even the so called experts that are key in facilitating this are surprised by the results: "Trevor Philips, former head of the Equality & Human Rights Commission, said: "I thought Europe's Muslims would gradually blend into Britain's diverse landscape. I should have known better."

    w w w .bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36016708
    w w w .theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

    There are people that will STILL make excuses for these people and their "religion of peace", even in the face of cold hard facts. It's like some sort of mental illness. Banning Muslims coming to the USA is one of the best things Trump, or any other President can do.

  2. #182
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohdearuk View Post
    Muslims are not compatible with western society and actively hate western values.
    Bizarre claim to make in a thread about a Muslim who is outspokenly in favour of Western values and is clearly integrated into Western society.

    Some Muslims are a problem, some aren't, our job is to try and root out the problematic ones.

  3. #183
    Banned Tennis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    You wish you lived here
    Posts
    11,771
    Quote Originally Posted by purebalance View Post
    What's sad is he's in such a powerful position and hasn't rallied his religion to denounce the hateful rhetoric openly.

    Let me see him on air draw a picture of Mohammed and then maybe I'll take your post seriously.
    Hateful rhetoric? Lol what are you even talking about.

  4. #184
    Banned Orlong's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Class 1,000,000 Clean Room
    Posts
    13,127
    Good. We dont want his socialist ass to come here anyway

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    Hateful rhetoric? Lol what are you even talking about.
    Obvious bait, but whatever: against women, against jews, against gays. All in general in Muslim culture. Oh yeah and the "kill anyone who draws Mohammed."

    But hey post more like you have no idea...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by rogueMatthias View Post
    "extremist"? Gay marriage is illegal in pretty much every Muslim nation; in a lot of which it's still punishable by death. His views on the acceptance of homosexuality go against the views of even the majority of Muslims living in Britain. (according to most recent surveys anyway).



    Khans actually had a fatwa on him and been declared by many imams as a non-muslim for voting "Yes" towards same sex marriage. This is a pretty HUGE deal given the above that I was talking about; and the threat to his life shouldn't be taken entirely lightly. It's people having the guts to stand up for things like this that they believe in that can help inspire other people in the religions.
    There's a difference between having a different view and sticking to it and downright denouncing and showing how dumb the opposing views are. I want him on live television to draw a picture of mohammed.

  6. #186
    The Undying Kalis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Στην Κυπρο
    Posts
    32,390
    Quote Originally Posted by purebalance View Post
    There's a difference between having a different view and sticking to it and downright denouncing and showing how dumb the opposing views are. I want him on live television to draw a picture of mohammed.
    Once again, why would you want him to draw a picture of Mohammed? He can denounce extremism in Islam without insulting his own religion, would you expect someone to denounce extremist Christianity by using the Bible to wipe their arse? Your argument lacks anything approaching sensible reasoning.

  7. #187
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-t...tally-illegal/

    While some may have viewed the president's reaction as insufficient to meet the threat posed by terrorism, Trump's proposal appears to be an overreach which is largely inconsistent with U.S. practices, law and precedent.

    In your own words - Seriously, if you're going to shitpost at least know how our country works
    What part of this do you NOT understand?


    "I am also completely tired of pointing this out, but people continue to REFUSE to accept the truth: If Donald Trump becomes President he can ban ANY IMMIGRANT HE FUCKING PLEASES FROM ENTERING THE COUNTRY - INCLUDING MUSLIMS! The law already exists and he DOES NOT need approval from Congress or the SCOTUS.


    Read the law and quit posting all this bullshit rhetoric saying that the he cannot ban Muslims - HE ABSOLUTELY CAN!!!

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

    Here is the specific section granting him the power. STOP trying to debate this - it is a moot point.

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
    Get that? ANY CLASS OF ALIENS!!! Can it be any more clear?"

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransath View Post
    What part of this do you NOT understand?


    "I am also completely tired of pointing this out, but people continue to REFUSE to accept the truth: If Donald Trump becomes President he can ban ANY IMMIGRANT HE FUCKING PLEASES FROM ENTERING THE COUNTRY - INCLUDING MUSLIMS! The law already exists and he DOES NOT need approval from Congress or the SCOTUS.


    Read the law and quit posting all this bullshit rhetoric saying that the he cannot ban Muslims - HE ABSOLUTELY CAN!!!

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

    Here is the specific section granting him the power. STOP trying to debate this - it is a moot point.


    Get that? ANY CLASS OF ALIENS!!! Can it be any more clear?"
    You didn't read the story did you? /sigh why do I even bother. But by all means keep posting and not understanding

  9. #189
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    You didn't read the story did you? /sigh why do I even bother. But by all means keep posting and not understanding
    Oh, I read the article. It quotes a Constitutional lawyer who speculated that it was against the Constitution. The power the President has NOTHING to do do with the Constitution! I just quoted you DIRECT US LAW. IT IS THE FUCKING LAW!!!!!!

    From your article:

    ""The only respect in which religion is a legal criterion in immigration choices is that fleeing religious persecution weighs in someone's favor on the question of being granted refugee status," Richard Primus, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan law school, told CBS News. "Saying 'no Muslims allowed' or 'no Christians allowed' would not be legal. It would probably be unconstitutional.""


    Probably =/= definitely
    Last edited by mmocc836e66a65; 2016-05-11 at 07:25 PM.

  10. #190
    I am Murloc! Pangean's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Laurasia
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    Good. We dont want his socialist ass to come here anyway
    Who is we Orlong?
    Last edited by Pangean; 2016-05-11 at 07:40 PM.
    What are we gonna do now? Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
    'Cause they're working for the clampdown
    They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
    When we're working for the clampdown
    We will teach our twisted speech To the young believers
    We will train our blue-eyed men To be young believers

  11. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransath View Post
    Probably =/= definitely
    At least you finally admitted it

  12. #192
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    At least you finally admitted it
    WTF? I didn't admit anything - I merely pointed out that YOUR source (that you are using to bolster your entire argument) said "probably".

    I quoted the actual law - which says YOU SOURCE is full of shit.

  13. #193
    Americans don't want this islamist apologist anyways. He can stay in London and continue to turn Britain into an Islamic republic. What a disgrace. Britain is really a disgrace. Their boys won two world wars only so their capitol could one day turn into Islamabad. Embarrassing. I'm ashamed to have British ancestry and wouldn't even claim it anymore.

    I hope Trump invades Britain and makes it great again.

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-t...tally-illegal/

    While some may have viewed the president's reaction as insufficient to meet the threat posed by terrorism, Trump's proposal appears to be an overreach which is largely inconsistent with U.S. practices, law and precedent.

    In your own words - Seriously, if you're going to shitpost at least know how our country works
    I feel sorry for you, your brain is clearly a dumpster fire of liberal propaganda.

    Immigration law gives the president more than enough authority to deny entry to classes of people who would otherwise be allowed into the country. From 8 U.S.C. 1182, the following aliens are inadmissable:

    “An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.”

    “Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.”
    “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

    The provisions leave it to the president and his subordinates to determine who is a threat and who isn’t. But doesn’t the Constitution limit the president’s power to use these sections? The relevant case is Kleindienst v. Mandel from 1972, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General acted lawfully by denying entry to a Marxist journalist because of his political beliefs. The Court said:

    In summary, plenary congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens has long been firmly established. In the case of an alien excludable under s 212(a)(28), Congress has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive. We hold that when the Executive exercises this power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant. What First Amendment or other grounds may be available for attacking exercise of discretion for which no justification whatsoever is advanced is a question we neither address or decide in this case.

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by hydrium View Post
    Uhh the president DOES have the authority to deny people entry into the US.

    Seriously, if you're going to shitpost at least know how our country works.
    The President does have the authority to deny entry under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

    Only 1 problem though. There is no way for border inspectors to find out that an alien seeking admission to the United States is a Muslim. It is a religion, not a nationality. There are no religious affiliations on passports.

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    I think a better policy would just be to not allow ANY religious people in. Lets be fair at least and ban ALL people who believe in magic and fairy tales.
    Given that the way we think about religion is actually extremely similar to the way we think about science, we would have to be fair and go ahead and ban anyone who believes anything. Probably better for the ecosystem anyway.

  17. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennisace View Post
    Why he needs to?

    He's the mayor of one of the financial capitals of the world.
    I don't know how it works in UK (or Canada) but usually a mayor is in charge of city affairs while the government is in charge of international affairs. Is he also a minister or something?

    I would claim that as London mayor if he couldn't go to some parts of London (for example if he wasn't a muslim and wanted to go to some muslim areas) - that would be a much bigger deal.

  18. #198
    I read somewhere that he defended louis Farrakhan in court before or something along those lines.

  19. #199
    I agree with Tennisace, we should euthanize Donald Trump.

  20. #200
    Deleted
    Let the Muslims into the USA. They will bring Muslim patrols which are super helpful for your local community like here. Such a lovely group of people.

    youtube.com/watch?v=T8fzcT7jHG8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •