At 10/14/16 07:22 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/12/16 03:58 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I would like to point out this is all Bullshit.

Neat. The George Carlin argument. Here's the deal though, the government to my mind is as cowardly as the people who spout "revolution!". Nobody is going to upset the apple cart,

As long as the First Amendment is in place, as long as the US Consitution is in place, the OP has no argument, it goes nowhere. It's Un-Constitutional and as long as that is the law of the land in the US, no religious ban can be enacted. Hypotheticals can be fun, but this type dies out quick, because it usually just ends with people saying what you're saying to feel like you're smart because you think somebody like me hasn't considered or can't see your point (I have and I do) but the easy refutation is what I just said above, and that as long as reality stays constant to what it is now, there's no argument to be had.

;;;
The problem of the Constitution is simple, those in power make a change. You can't say it isn't happening now , because it is...but instead of Government enacting a Trump idea of blocking Muslim access to America "Until they are properly vetted to weed out extremists & criminals).
Bush & Now Obama are doing an increasing heavy handed security .
Where it is now the government forces ( it seems to people like me, your 1,000 different policing services) do racial profiling & one needs go no further than an airport to see who gets stopped , questioned, complete searches , those of Arabian or middle east background get way more hassle . Than say a White middle aged Eastern Canadian aka me, & I travel a lot. Its why I haven't been by in a bit ... I was away.

At 10/17/16 04:13 AM, Yu-Liu wrote: Yes, that's the most disappointing thing. Few people(but I) have the courage to challenge the establishment thought in fear of being blamed, even when the free world is being threatened and undermined by the cult with the name of "religion" who takes advantage of the "freedom" and political correctness.

No, what's happening is people like you are taking a few bad actors and saying "well, that's clearly indicative of the whole of the religion". It's not. There are several billion Muslim's in the world. Yes, there are those who do not actively engage in actions like ISIS or Al Qaeda do, but are sympathetic to the cause, but then there's millions more who condemn it, who hate them because it creates and feeds people like you. I work with Muslims, all they want is to be allowed to make a living, and live their lives in peace for the most part. I mean, I think I linked numbers as to how unlikely you are to be affected by Muslim terror (it's actually lower then Christian or Jewish terror and those even lower then just about everything else). If I'm misremebering I'll happily link it again here.

That's why German people are more conscious of this, since US as well as other western countries haven't learned enough "lessons". This day will come sooner or later though.

We have probably the toughest vetting for refugees in the world right now. Germany's mistake was basically opening the border to everybody and assuming no terrorists or other bad actors would pour through.

At 10/18/16 11:10 AM, morefngdbs wrote: The problem of the Constitution is simple, those in power make a change. You can't say it isn't happening now , because it is...

Examples. Because the government is actually very limited in what it can do because the only way to change the Constitution is by Amendment, and the ratification process is quite difficult. The bar extremely high. You again are speaking in hypotheticals it seems. No matter how much they push and try to but right up against the line, what the OP and to a lesser extent Donald Trump proposes are simply Un-Constitutional because it clearly violates the First Amendment.

but instead of Government enacting a Trump idea of blocking Muslim access to America "Until they are properly vetted to weed out extremists & criminals).

The government already has some of the toughest vetting of anyone. If you are coming from Syria or another known breeding ground for terrorism you are going to be screened harder then just about anybody. It's just another Conservative myth (like how illegals are getting here) that they've cooked up to scare the fact challenged.

Where it is now the government forces ( it seems to people like me, your 1,000 different policing services) do racial profiling & one needs go no further than an airport to see who gets stopped , questioned, complete searches , those of Arabian or middle east background get way more hassle . Than say a White middle aged Eastern Canadian aka me, & I travel a lot. Its why I haven't been by in a bit ... I was away.

I think there's a lot we could be doing better. But I also do think it's an unfortunate reality that when we do threat assessment, people who fit certain profiles based on past incidents are going to be treated with a more jaundiced eye. But there's way worse, more over the line things happening then mere profiling.

At 10/18/16 06:47 PM, Entice wrote:

At 10/14/16 06:16 AM, Yu-Liu wrote: Though I’m prepared to hear you say, it’s still not convincing… but can you explain why?

Yes. IQ tests are far from infallible. Possible explanations for the disparity could include everything from the testing methods used, to poor access education, to poor nutrition and living conditions. The study was done by country, which fails to account for any socioeconomic differences between regions, and you're attributing the difference to religion instead. So while it may be true that IQ scores tended to be lower in majority Islamic countries, it's not enough evidence to prove that Muslims are inherently less intelligent than other people, solely because of their religion.

That is also a single statistic. I've provided you with many and I can easily find more. It's important to focus of the bigger picture instead of cherry picking a single IQ study and touting it as your smoking gun.

When you say the word “discrimination”, can you give a definition?

Discrimination is prejudicial or preferential treatment of different categories of people. Try dictionary.com next time.

What if I just tell the fact which you cannot deny, who on earth do I discriminate?

You're advocating for institutional discrimination against Muslims, in the form of mandated conversions.

Like I say Muslim people tend to have lower IQ and less intelligent, which is the truth.

You're not advocating that we discriminate based on IQ. You're advocating that we discriminate against Muslims, and using an IQ study as evidence for why the ban should exist. There's a difference.

Out of curiosity, do you know what your IQ is?

Why shouldn’t I tell the truth, given I’m not a politician thus no need to fear political correctness. You believe it’s a more elegant way to cover up something perceived uncomfortable and disallow people to tell?

No. I believe you're trying to sell your mandated discrimination plan as rational, when it is not. That has nothing to do with political correctness.

“The study was done by country, which fails to account for any socioeconomic differences between regions, and you're attributing the difference to religion instead.”

Yes, there’s already research suggesting that the secular people are prone to be more intelligent, which is not surprising, as I showed you examples in my life as well.

“Discrimination is prejudicial or preferential treatment of different categories of people. Try dictionary.com next time.”
The reason I asked for the definition is, I found very often when people are debating something, they eventually found they use the term with diverging meanings, that is to say they are talking about different topics.
And yes I agree, the discrimination is the opinion based on prejudice without reasonable thinking. Therefore, the fact that Muslim people on average have lower IQ is just my prejudice without statistical data? Despite any of that, you can easily ask those working in science/tech fields what the proportion of Muslims (note: I’m saying Muslims, rather than people from Middle east countries) they can see there, and everybody could realize that point, it’s just so obvious.
In fact you are holding the prejudice that I shouldn’t say such thing though it does exist, simply because I’m not a Muslim right? How about a testimony from a guy who originates from a Muslim nation then?
The most prominent prejudice people often have is, they tend to believe people intentionally criticize them instead of considering if those words are true.
“You're advocating for institutional discrimination against Muslims, in the form of mandated conversions.”
In fact, I prefer choosing non-Muslims, just like the policy favoring people with higher qualification. Indeed lots of Muslim refugees don’t have qualification, so this might be the only requirement for selecting eligible candidates.

“You're not advocating that we discriminate based on IQ. You're advocating that we discriminate against Muslims, and using an IQ study as evidence for why the ban should exist. There's a difference.”
In your words, doing those research & stats is fundamentally discriminative? And we have no right to know about that at all, is that what you want to express? It’s like we had exam, and Mr. A always did the worst. Once I happened to get such result and I tell others his mark, you would say, I discriminate Mr. A. That’s your logic, ha?
In terms of my own IQ, I never took the test and I’m more interested about the world rather than myself. Frankly I wasn’t the top student from MIT/Harvard, so arguably it won’t be very high. This shouldn’t be part of an objective discussion.
“No. I believe you're trying to sell your mandated discrimination plan as rational, when it is not. That has nothing to do with political correctness.”
It still comes to the definition of discrimination. You assert that I discriminated Mr. A while I actually said nothing but the fact. If that is called discrimination, we can’t move on further, before making clear of what the “discrimination” is.

At 10/18/16 06:54 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/18/16 11:10 AM, morefngdbs wrote: The problem of the Constitution is simple, those in power make a change.

Examples. Because the government is actually very limited in what it can do because the only way to change the Constitution is by Amendment,

;

Sorry I thought my example in earlier post would be clear enough.
The japanese internment

That was done by Executive order.
Your President can in times of peril (not just war see USA arming for World War I,) issue an executive order. HAs almost limitless power & can override Congress during the 'crisis'

No Amendment or Constitution required.

People are jst afraid.

At 10/19/16 10:01 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 10/18/16 06:54 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/18/16 11:10 AM, morefngdbs wrote: The problem of the Constitution is simple, those in power make a change.

Examples. Because the government is actually very limited in what it can do because the only way to change the Constitution is by Amendment,

;

Sorry I thought my example in earlier post would be clear enough.
The japanese internment

That was done by Executive order.
Your President can in times of peril (not just war see USA arming for World War I,) issue an executive order. HAs almost limitless power & can override Congress during the 'crisis'

No Amendment or Constitution required.

Right, constitution was written by men, not god, which changed from time to time. Prior to 1920s, women were not allowed to vote according to then Constitution. No need to regard constitution as Quran.

At 10/19/16 10:01 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Sorry I thought my example in earlier post would be clear enough.
The japanese internment

A bad thing, but not a violation necessarily of a specific amendment, and while I'm not terribly up on the subject, what I DO know about it....and what I can compare to the law, I imagine this was an unfortunate case of reading the Espionage Act or similar broadly and since it was also a "temporary" measure, that helped it get through. This example does not hold to what the OP is proposing. Which violates whole hog a specific Amendment (which can't be done unless the Amendment is struck down) and there's no wiggling there.

That was done by Executive order.

See above.

Your President can in times of peril (not just war see USA arming for World War I,) issue an executive order. HAs almost limitless power & can override Congress during the 'crisis'

Depends, honestly it really does. Executive Order has been abused, but it also is not as iron clad air tight as you think (for example the next President, if they don't like the policies of the prior President can simply undo all the executive orders of the last President). However, an executive order MUST respect the Constitution and existing law or else it can be overridden and invalidated.

No Amendment or Constitution required.

You clearly need to do more research into how our government works. Seriously, because what you're saying does not make sense.

At 10/19/16 02:32 PM, Yu-Liu wrote: Right, constitution was written by men, not god, which changed from time to time.

Right, but that's why it was written with the idea that it could be amended because the Founders were smart enough to realize they needed a "living document" as they had a living and changing nation. They knew for the experiment and the nation to continue the government would need to be able to change and adapt to those changes.

Prior to 1920s, women were not allowed to vote according to then Constitution.

Yes, you know what happened? The 19th Amendment, we amended it to add and codify that right. They didn't just say "let's just do it because we think it's a good idea". They followed the process laid out to change our governing document and did so.

No need to regard constitution as Quran.

You and more seriously need more education about basic American Civics if you want to continue this discussion, you're out in ignorant town and forming your arguments from that ignorance.

At 10/19/16 04:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You clearly need to do more research into how our government works. Seriously, because what you're saying does not make sense.

;;;
Actually , what doesn't make sense.
Is how you & so many other Americans are completely blind to What your Constitutional rights are.
How your Government Agencies are abusing those rights.

How Americans are in many cases embracing those abuses (Patriot act , for example.)

And how you & anyone else who has it pointed out to you... YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS.

If they can be taken away .

I don't care how you want to quibble about it. IF a Government, any agency of that Government, OR EVEN, if an outside force takes over & can take away your rights.

Then you do not have any rights , all you have are privileges ... that are beyond your control.
That is your reality. It is the reality for much of the planet.
You may today have a few more privileges than a North Korean, but they are subject to the whim of others.

At 10/22/16 11:53 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Actually , what doesn't make sense.
Is how you & so many other Americans are completely blind to What your Constitutional rights are.
How your Government Agencies are abusing those rights.

I think most Americans know about that, but there isn't uniform agreement that abuse is happening. People want to feel safe, and in a world where you have ordinary people who cook up home made bombs and things....well, it's not entirely wrong to think we've got to have additional security (but not to the level it's been taken I agree.

How Americans are in many cases embracing those abuses (Patriot act , for example.)

People knee jerk reacted to that one. It's popularity has dwindled the further we get from 9/11, but as I've said elsewhere and to a lot of people, I think you'd almost need to elect saints at this point to get that sucker rolled back in toto.

And how you & anyone else who has it pointed out to you... YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS.

George. Carlin. Again. Yes, you have the rights the government tells you you have, and that you believe you have. That's not just America, that's anywhere else. But I truly believe that there's a line that people won't tolerate being crossed, and that the government is too scared/invested into the status quo to try and cross. I don't think they or the public have the stomach or the need for an actual dictatorship or ripping up the Constitution.

Then you do not have any rights , all you have are privileges ... that are beyond your control.
That is your reality. It is the reality for much of the planet.
You may today have a few more privileges than a North Korean, but they are subject to the whim of others.

As you said, so is most of the planet. Luckily we live in a part of the world where the prevailing theory seems to be keep things as they are and the citizens unrestricted. The idea that the government is coming to crack down and take away everyone's rights willy nilly is still the land of conspiracy theory to me. There are safeguards if people choose to enforce them and that elected officials do tend to take as the bed rock of their beliefs (or at the least as I said have little inclination to push up against too hard).

But we are getting off topic. As I've said, you are presented a hypothetical, and I am saying what I've been saying since I first responded to the OP: As long as the US Constitution is in place, and it is constituted as it is now....his idea is clearly not going to happen because there is a legal standard that renders it illegal and impossible. Could that change one day? Yeah, it could. But the current bar for that is insanely high and I don't see it ever gaining the real momentum to even be tested. So there's nothing to discuss on that here really that I can see. As far as what you've brought up....that doesn't really go anywhere either since it's purely in the realm of hypothetical or conspiracy theory. There are instances where you could say the government is not living up to the terms of the Constitution, but there are very few instances that I can see where a real case can be made that it's being violated.

At 10/22/16 11:53 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Actually , what doesn't make sense.
Is how you & so many other Americans are completely blind to What your Constitutional rights are.

I wouldn't say that they are blind as much as they are ignorant of what their rights are and what limits are there, of course when you have taken them for granted for nearly 250 years with the only debatable interruption of said rights was during war, sorry if the average person isn't as keen to the Constitution as you would like.

How your Government Agencies are abusing those rights.

How so? You keep saying it but you have posted nothing specific and how does it affect our rights. We're not going to simply take your word for it, considering that you are a notorious liar.

How Americans are in many cases embracing those abuses (Patriot act , for example.)

Debatable at best.

And how you & anyone else who has it pointed out to you... YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS.

Except that we do. How many times must we explain it to you? Folks who claim that "we don't have rights" are totally ignorant of how the Constitution works on a specific level, and probably only get information from elementary level sources or deluded conspiracy theorists who are about as reliable as a used car salesman.

You can't keep making blanket statements on something you don't like because it offends your sensibilities, especially if you have no real idea on how they really work.

Then you do not have any rights , all you have are privileges ... that are beyond your control.

You really don't know the difference between rights and privileges do you? I despise when outsiders try to badmouth us on how we do our business and how we should run things when they have no idea how our country is ran, especially when we are the ones who end up with the heavy lifting while you live in realitive comfort on a global stage.

You may today have a few more privileges than a North Korean, but they are subject to the whim of others.

Fail comparison is fail. You know better than that.

One more news I read today, again about "Muslim culture":

Is a child bride really married every seven seconds?

At 10/19/16 02:32 PM, Yu-Liu wrote:

Right, constitution was written by men, not god, which changed from time to time. Prior to 1920s, women were not allowed to vote according to then Constitution.

That's not a factual statement. Women had, lost, then regained voting rights. And by the time the 19th Amendment was passed, 3/4th of states allowed women to vote in some to all elections.

As it was first written, the Constitution didn't deny women the right to vote, and some women did in fact vote. It was later additions and interpretations that go against actual founding principles and document intentions which denied people their rights.

America's constitution grants the freedom of religion the very idea of making someone abandoning their religion because we are sacred is ridiculous

At 11/4/16 08:33 PM, KindOfSeriousYetNot wrote: America's constitution grants the freedom of religion the very idea of making someone abandoning their religion because we are sacred is ridiculous

If that's really a hardline that can't walk-round, can we stop taking any refugees then?

At 11/6/16 03:36 AM, Yu-Liu wrote: If that's really a hardline that can't walk-round, can we stop taking any refugees then?

There's no law that says we have to. But they are vetted extremely hard (unlike what you hear out of the Right who has a vested interest in peddling that lie), and therefore we've taken in a very select few.

At 11/6/16 12:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/6/16 03:36 AM, Yu-Liu wrote: If that's really a hardline that can't walk-round, can we stop taking any refugees then?

There's no law that says we have to. But they are vetted extremely hard (unlike what you hear out of the Right who has a vested interest in peddling that lie), and therefore we've taken in a very select few.

If changing constitution appears impossible as you've expressed, refusal of refugee intake may be the only feasible way to inhibit the problem and tension.

Who honestly declare that they like to live in a neighborhood surrounded by Muslim refugees? If you don't like it(and not live in there), please don't hurt others.

At 11/6/16 05:16 PM, Yu-Liu wrote: If changing constitution appears impossible as you've expressed,

I didn't suggest it's impossible. I'm saying it's so improbable to change the Constitution in general because of the high bar....now let's couple that you would literally be changing the First Amendment to it, which is the very first bit in what is dubbed "The Bill of Rights", also given that this is actually three things being protected, and some would probably say "well, if we take away one....what stops people from wanting to fuck with the rest of it?" I'm going to say it's as close to impossible as you can get while still leaving the door open just the tiniest crack for the possibility of the thing simply because there is at the least a mechanism whereby the change could occur.

refusal of refugee intake may be the only feasible way to inhibit the problem and tension.

Or you know, we could just ignore people who are prejudiced and uninformed on the issue and not worry about taking their ideas seriously. We already do it with the KKK, so there is a precedent.

Who honestly declare that they like to live in a neighborhood surrounded by Muslim refugees?

So...if people decided that there's something about their neighbors religion, ethnicity, or other thing that can't help....when everything else they do is well within the law, the neighborhood rules and mores....you'd still say the neighborhood should reserve the right to have that person removed?

At 11/7/16 08:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/6/16 05:16 PM, Yu-Liu wrote: If changing constitution appears impossible as you've expressed,

I didn't suggest it's impossible. I'm saying it's so improbable to change the Constitution in general because of the high bar....now let's couple that you would literally be changing the First Amendment to it, which is the very first bit in what is dubbed "The Bill of Rights", also given that this is actually three things being protected, and some would probably say "well, if we take away one....what stops people from wanting to fuck with the rest of it?" I'm going to say it's as close to impossible as you can get while still leaving the door open just the tiniest crack for the possibility of the thing simply because there is at the least a mechanism whereby the change could occur.

refusal of refugee intake may be the only feasible way to inhibit the problem and tension.

Or you know, we could just ignore people who are prejudiced and uninformed on the issue and not worry about taking their ideas seriously. We already do it with the KKK, so there is a precedent.

Who honestly declare that they like to live in a neighborhood surrounded by Muslim refugees?

So...if people decided that there's something about their neighbors religion, ethnicity, or other thing that can't help....when everything else they do is well within the law, the neighborhood rules and mores....you'd still say the neighborhood should reserve the right to have that person removed?

"Or you know, we could just ignore people who are prejudiced and uninformed on the issue and not worry about taking their ideas seriously. We already do it with the KKK, so there is a precedent."

It's not appropriate to compare Muslim refugees to KKK, as the latter already existed in this country, and there's no way to deport them. But every country has its right to choose who are considered beneficial to the nation while reject those who seem to be a potential threat.

"So...if people decided that there's something about their neighbors religion, ethnicity, or other thing that can't help....when everything else they do is well within the law, the neighborhood rules and mores....you'd still say the neighborhood should reserve the right to have that person removed?"

I'm tired of these seemingly decent politically correct words. Yes you are 100% correct on paper, but in practice, tell me are you living in a place surrounded by Refugees? You don't see loads of people paying for expensive houses in areas where less African/Muslims are there which lead to better safety. Yes, I believe you should be rich enough to live in a "white zone", but please think about others.

I would respect Hillary Clinton or any Dems only if they choose to live in a Muslim neighborhood. Otherwise please stop using those beautiful words.

At 11/8/16 01:53 AM, Yu-Liu wrote: It's not appropriate to compare Muslim refugees to KKK,

I wasn't, I was talking about you. But thanks for proving the point I've been trying to make about how low I'm guessing your IQ is.

I'm tired of these seemingly decent politically correct words.

No no. I'm tired of people hiding behind the idea that saying "not treating people like shit because prejudice is bad" is a politically correct idea. It's not. It's the law, and it's a cornerstone of this country.

I would respect Hillary Clinton or any Dems only if they choose to live in a Muslim neighborhood. Otherwise please stop using those beautiful words.

Dude, I work with a couple Muslim's, great people. I'd be happy to live in the same neighborhood as they do. Stop acting like you being biggoted is somehow the norm and the rest of us have the problem. You're also about a million miles off topic now. So if all we're going to do is argue over whether your bigotry is justified, it's time to close up shop here.

At 3/27/16 12:02 AM, TylerFromTexas wrote:

At 3/26/16 11:15 PM, Yu-Liu wrote:

The difficulty is, as I mentioned previously, no way to differentiate the terror-Muslim and normal-Muslim...

Not true for obvious reasons. Those who are normal Muslims do not belong to a terror group who advocate violence. Even if they're difficult to distinguish between the two, what's the actual ratio between Muslim Terrorists to Regular Muslims?

;;;
Ahhh , but in my opinion you have muslims, who may not be ready to drive their car into a crowd, or blow themselves up....but if some dipshit says "oh that person has defiled a copy of the koran" watch how rabid and asinine ...batshit mentally rabid they become, with hundreds even thousands of them rioting , burning, property destruction assaults murders & out of control mayhem...by so called 'peaceful' muslims

Imagine how they will become when they hear I like using the Koran to wipe myself,( I'll also use pages from a bible if I run outta koran's.)
But if we are really going to have freedom, I should be allowed to not only do that, I should be allowed to say so as well.

Sure it wouldn't be right to use "your" copy to do it, but what & how I use my own should be my business & no cause for anyone to go off the rails. After all its not like we are talking a limited edition first run superman comic book here.

At 11/25/16 05:55 AM, megabyte12345 wrote:

At 3/25/16 02:54 PM, Yu-Liu wrote: Interestingly, never saw this kind of opinion among politicians so far.

It's easy and rational. Think about what Islam/Muslim is? It's not a substance or a certain type of human being, but a concept, just like communism. As a result, I'm not talking about racism. Since the ban on communism has been widely accepted, but why no ban on the ignorant religion? If you are saying it's discrimination, why not say so on communism then?

I'd say this is fine. Christianity is the only true religion anyways, so it doesn't make a difference if they aren't saved.

You'd better watch the following report before showing sympathy for Muslims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XP6Q2CXB-w

I'd say this topic is done since apparently now it's just a bunch of people crapping on Islam. There's nothing productive in crapping on a religion and stirring up trouble. As was pointed out many times, the OP's idea is illegal from the jump anyway.