What is salvation? Tell me your interpretation of it. Because like most of your crap it will be simplistic to the point most who are religious wouldn't recognize it. But go on, tell me what salvation is.
Temporary Ban on Immigration.....
- Thread starter Bruce1
- Start date
I don't know, it would seem by your response to be too difficult for you to articulate what eternal salvation is. Come on man, you're the self proclaimed religion expert and intellectual here, tell me what eternal salvation is, what are we all seeking? I mean you ridicule anyone who even remotely believes in a God and eternal salvation would seem to be the ultimate goal of that belief, so dazzle us, what are we all seeking?
I went to respond to this but just realized you didn't really refute or affirm anything in my post. My position has been clearly stated, so what's yours?
It is funny how these cuck face loser liberals will sit there and spit on the American constitution and NOT question why the DHS gave this Orlando shooter a license at their security company that was contracted by the government. Who's board of directors is basically a who's who list of top people in the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security. They hired, trained, and licensed this ISIS member Orlando shooter. The only reason this guy got the gun was because he had these preordained licenses in the system which boost your status. Not least of issues is that Hillary Clinton BLOCKED the FBI investigation into this guy and her State Department ordered the files totally destroyed years ago, and isn't it disgusting that the Orlando shooters father takes magazine like poses right at Hillary Clinton's office before he goes in to say hello to his commander. And the gun store called the FBI store just a few weeks before this attack and that say on their asz. This is pure treason what happened in Orlando AT BEST. To say that was a mistake is the same thing as to say the entire government is more incompetent that a retarded idiot, in which case ANYTHING they say about guns, the second amendment, or national security HAS NO VALIDITY WHATSOEVER because they have demonstrated TOTAL FAILURE.
Excellent. Great to hear there's precedent for banning weapons that can kill dozens of people a minute...gives me hope for future progress in the same direction.
Yah except when the government gives them to drug gangs and terrorists to slaughter Americans. The government runs guns to drug lords to slaughter and menace the slaves to keep them down and filthy. They have little cover story funny names like fast and furious to be left cover when they are caught. Why do you think it is that a government contracted top security firm employed this guy and trained him AND gave him the special security licenses to get through the background checks. Of course don't mention how Hillary Clinton's State Department had the investigations stopped on this shooter. .....Disarming the citizens is the same thing as opening the gates during the Trojan War. They seek to disarm you to rule supreme over you. Americans aren't giving up their weapons. We aren't the stupid cucks that let the horse through the gates without checking what was inside. No way no how. The beauty of it is this is exactly how the Revolutionary war started. The sooner these Liberals try and grab these guns to put America under the New World Order Royal Institute of Intl Affairs takeover of the US the sooner they'll be removed from power for 10,000 years. There won't be a town anywhere in the world these Illuminati globalists won't be hunted down. Not all of us got cuck'd in the liberal froth centers called schools.
WE KNOW WHAT THE SCORE IS....WE KNOW WHO DID IT....
They might of failed in WW2 as the Illuminati used Operation Paperclip to export Hitler's operation globally. They might of disarmed the Jews a few years before Warburg's brother put in the death camps for Hitler, but America knows was up. If you thought Nuremberg was bad you ain't seen nothing yet. Because Operation Paperclip won't be repeating itself this time around. Jews were disarmed and gassed by Paul Warburg's brother's chemical company under Hitler's orders who he directly funded. America isn't going to go the way of the Jews in WW2. Be rest assured of that.
AMERICA KNOWS WHAT THIS FILTHY GOVERNMENT DID. AND AMERICA WILL NEVER FORGET IT. WE KNOW WHAT THE LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO DO. AMERICA KNOWS.
AMERICA KNOWS WHAT THE LIBERALS DID. WE KNOW WHAT THE GLOBALISTS PLANNED. AMERICA KNOWS WHAT WAS DONE ON 911.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fast-and-furious-gun-found-el-chapo-hideout-mexico/
WASHINGTON - One of the guns that Mexican officials say was found at the hideout of drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman has been found to be associated with Fast and Furious, a failed "gun-walking" operation, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
The department said in a letter to Congress that a .50-caliber rifle that Mexican officials sent for tracing after Guzman's arrest in January has been connected to Fast and Furious.
Last edited:
In a single sentence, I think there are a lot of people who see "Muslim" and immediately think "Terrorist". That's vastly different from seeing "Terrorist" and thinking "Muslim". The latter is understandable at this point. The former is not.
ISIS comes to Indiana.
In April of 2015, the Brownsburg Police Department responded to Williams Park, where it had been alleged that people were asking kids at the park if they wanted to join Daesh.
On May 9, an FBI agent observed Musleh shopping for pressure cookers at the Wal-Mart in Brownsburg.
Court documents indicate that Musleh may have had a fiancee in Sweden that is an ISIL sympathizer.
http://wishtv.com/2016/06/21/fbi-conducting-investigation-in-brownsburg/
Woof.
In April of 2015, the Brownsburg Police Department responded to Williams Park, where it had been alleged that people were asking kids at the park if they wanted to join Daesh.
On May 9, an FBI agent observed Musleh shopping for pressure cookers at the Wal-Mart in Brownsburg.
Court documents indicate that Musleh may have had a fiancee in Sweden that is an ISIL sympathizer.
http://wishtv.com/2016/06/21/fbi-conducting-investigation-in-brownsburg/
Woof.
Last edited:
Chilling. Islamic terrorists tell this man to commit Islamic terror acts at home since he can't get out of the states.
User #1: How about operations there [?]
Musleh: What kind [?] As many people [k]ept on telling me that [.]
User #1: Kill a few kufr [non-Muslims or non-believers] or go to a drone place and blow the boots p[.]
Musleh: Where is a drone place[?] Do you know where?
User #1: Find out yourself[.] Florida maybe[.]
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...n-accused-supporting-isil-terrorism/86202800/
User #1: How about operations there [?]
Musleh: What kind [?] As many people [k]ept on telling me that [.]
User #1: Kill a few kufr [non-Muslims or non-believers] or go to a drone place and blow the boots p[.]
Musleh: Where is a drone place[?] Do you know where?
User #1: Find out yourself[.] Florida maybe[.]
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...n-accused-supporting-isil-terrorism/86202800/
I say put him away for life, no parole. But then again, I'm an islamaphobe according to some of the "open minds" on this board. LOL.
Yeah...the right to bear arms is sooooo closely related to immigration policy.
Insofar as immigration policy based on religion (and not country of origin) pertains to the first amendment, and the right to bear arms is the second amendment... do try and keep up.
Why are firefighters saying the buildings had explosives in them on 911, but the government ( a bunch of soft squandering cucks with smart mouth traitors ) tells America that is crazy. The firefighters as first hand witnesses say WORD FOR WORD there WERE EXPLOSIVES IN THE DAMN TOWERS. THEY SAY IT ON VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now if a government will nuclear melt the Twin Towers on 911 do you mean to tell me that they won't stage shootings in major US cities WHEN THEY ACTUALLY PLANNED IT BEFORE IN THEIR HISTORY UNDER OPERATION NORTHWOODS? Terrorists have ALWAYS worked for a government (either foreign or domestic) since the beginning of time going back to ancient times. WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT EDIT OUT THE ORLANDO SHOOTERS WORDS WHEN HE CALLED THE POLICE FROM PLEDGING TO ALLAH? They removed Allah and replaced it with God. They removed the ISIS comments. THAT IS HIGH TREASON AND SABOTAGE.
THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TRIED FOR TREASON UNDER MAXIMUM PENALTY - THEY WAGED WAR AGAINST THE COUNTRY
ON VIDEO- THE COUNTRY WAS SABOTAGED FROM WITHIN- THEY NEED TRIED FOR TREASON UNDER MAXIMUM PENALTY
THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TRIED FOR TREASON UNDER MAXIMUM PENALTY - THEY WAGED WAR AGAINST THE COUNTRY
ON VIDEO- THE COUNTRY WAS SABOTAGED FROM WITHIN- THEY NEED TRIED FOR TREASON UNDER MAXIMUM PENALTY
Right. When you can no longer argue the point, resort to the personal attack. Pretty cool. But the feeling is mutual, believe me!
the new class of trolls is kind of lacking. They don't have the purity of GMM or the fresh hot crazy of illuminati or even the banality of Purdue97. I was hoping for more. Oh well.
Troll? typical, you've cut me to the quick...
OK, so I said immigration policy has nothing to do with the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Mr. Simpleton said immigration policies based on religion implicated the First Amendment. I don't think so...and neither does the ACLU because...as I mentioned before...immigration policy is within the plenary power of Congress.
https://www.aclu.org/rights-immigrants-aclu-position-paper
Moreover, when someone asks a question about precluding Muslims from immigrating to the US, even if that raised a constitutional question, a response that says "Oh yeah, well what about restrictions on the 2nd amendment," does little to advance the discussion.
So, if by disagreeing with Mr. Simpleton...or you, typical...that makes me a troll, so be it.
That you don't understand that there is a tie between freedom of religion as it pertains to immigration and the very principles on which this country was founded and the right to bear arms and your inability to understand what a rhetorical questions are and to continue beating that dead horse (as though I implied gun rights and immigration rights to free practice of religion were the same, rather than simply related) belies you calling anyone else a "Simpleton". There is blatant hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. If you weren't new here, you'd know that I am frustrated with the Republican Party for this very reason - the hypocrisy of supporting certain rights and defending the Constitution to the death until its convenient to do otherwise, and equally frustrated with Democrats who stand up for due process as it pertains to actual known terrorists and militants who've taken action against the US (GITMO) yet support revoking Constitutional rights for people on a "terror watch list" which requires, what, accessing an ISIS website?
Trust me when I say I've probably put more thought into all of this over the past few years than you, and I'm no "simpleton". I have noticed, however, that people who see things only in black and white are often frustrated when they can't understand nuanced argument, and I'm pretty sure that's where you are right now.
Hypocrisy in politics...film at 11....btw, I never said I supported Trump's proposed immigration policy or that I'm against reasonable gun laws...I just don't see any constitutional issue on the immigration policy...keeping people out of the US for whatever reason is within Congress's powers. You may not like it, but the Constitution provides no right of redress.
And, I apologize for the "simpleton" comment. Sometimes I hit "post reply" when I should be taking time to pause and temper my posts.
Finally, I've been around these boards a long time...like since the web version of GBI went live. Just haven't taken time to post much. Probably a good thing.
To the first point, that's the crux of our disagreement. It may be within their powers to do so based on religion, but there is no precedent for it and I don't know what the SCOTUS would rule, though I suspect it'd be a 4-4 split today! The FA says nothing about other countries, so that's why I wouldn't necessarily oppose restrictions on immigration/refugees from Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc., but the FA does guarantee freedom of religion to "The People", and there is SCOTUS precedent for providing fundamental rights to non-citizens. There is precedent for not admitting folks who are considered subversive to the government, but again, I think it's an awfully hard case to make against the whole of Muslims in that regard. So all that is why I say it is unprecedented, in my opinion likely unconstitutional, and in any case not a sure-fire decision either way. Hopefully that clears the air and we just agree to disagree at this point.
To the second point, I'm trying to do more of that (posting less). It IS a good thing. And I wax and wane on that. Some topics I'm all in for discussion, but I have been actively trying to spend less and less time getting into arguments on the interwebz! (FAIL on this thread...)
Last edited:
well, you certainly are a lot less trollish on the OGFP forum than you are being over here, for whatever reason.
so if Congress wanted to bar immigration of all Black people, you think that's fully within their power, full stop, no judicial review?
I think you'd be dead wrong. There are limits. Where those limits are may be up to debate, but to suggest for whatever reason is highly likely to be incorrect.
As I've mentioned in this thread, the Constitution grants rights to "The People" and in only two instances does it specifically mention citizens (right to vote and right to run for elected office). In past such cases, "The People" applies to everyone living in the US and this has applied to due process, freedom of ______, etc.
I agree with qaz that this will be raised to the SCOTUS in about 2.6 seconds if it is passed, and I'm guessing there'd be an injunction on it from DOJ or perhaps the court itself.
without even thinking all that hard, for my example, I'd say any AA who has a relative who wants to emigrate but is barred by a racist rule which violates strict scrutiny as applied to race.
Heck, illegal immigrants have some protections and even in border zones where there are few protections, and people aren't in the country technically yet, there are still some.
Another group I assume would be those applying for citizenship. But I'm sure a full-time constitutional lawyer could come up with 3-5 bases for both standing and a violation in their sleep. I doubt that will be much of a problem. How courts might ultimately rule? I don't know although I'd be pretty shocked if "blacks can't come to the US" would survive judicial scrutiny. Of course, that won't happen because it's an extreme example, then again, ban all Muslims is pretty extreme too.
I didn't want to risk an apocalypse, or a false vacuum, or some other disruption of the natural order.
Yeah, I think similarly, MY biggest frustration is somehow, someway, across hundreds of millions of Americans, and despite a pretty broad diversity of population, somehow there still ends up being a very black and white debate on too many of these issues.
WAY too many people seem to have no idea how to deal with a nuanced debate, and the reason is IMO they've never even tried to think through the nuances. I honestly believe more people than not are just regurgitating "the party line", for whichever party it is they think they align with. And once you press them even just a bit to try and figure out what they really believe or what they really think, all too often you realize they haven't thought about the very thing they're pushing against so fiercely.
All of this is a real concern in a democracy, and in particular in a 2-party system. People need to think for themselves and be able to justify their beliefs, and not let a particular party leader or a particular news network do the thinking for them. My 2 cents.
Well, I don't think it's a slam dunk by any stretch. Just because something's outrageous doesn't make it unconstitutional.
I didn't say it was a slam dunk, but I also didn't say it was unconstitutional simply because it was "outrageous."
