# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Should the US limit the harm from too many Muslims by imposing a 2% limit on them?

## Pregnar Kraps

*Should the US limit the harm from too many Muslims by imposing a 2% limit on them?*






Yes


No


Maybe. I need to be convinced.


Not sure. I don't think so.


Other

----------


## EvilObamaClone

I think we should only let in the Muslims that intend to live by our laws and use our system and not those Muslims who intend to tear it down.

It's only a small bit of logic. But think of it. why should any country have to let in people who hate it and want to destroy it in favor of a tyranny of some sort?

Decent intelligent people realize what these monsters are up to, and should not let them anywhere near decent law abiding folk, if it can be helped.

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-15-2014)

----------


## DebateDrone

What the hell is a 2% limit? 2% of what.

I wish this nation had a 0% idiot limit.

----------

Old Navy (11-15-2014)

----------


## QuaseMarco

My answer is yes because as a group they are subversive.

https://www.citizensbrief.com/2014/s...slamic-reform/

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-15-2014)

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> What the hell is a 2% limit? 2% of what.
> 
> I wish this nation had a 0% idiot limit.


See?

As much as I have mentioned and referred to and posted the sources and links there is always someone who doesn't bother to drink even when the water trough is before their very eyes and within drinking range.

Sigh!

Watch the video, why don'tcha Sherlock?

And we wonder why there is so much dysfunction in this society.

Here, '_Brightness_.'

In case you can't figure out how to turn on a Youtube video.

http://www.think-israel.org/butrick.5stagesislam.html

If you need more help than this which I've provided you here you should register at TPF Jr.

----------



----------


## QuaseMarco

> I think we should only let in the Muslims that intend to live by our laws and use our system and not those Muslims who intend to tear it down.
> 
> It's only a small bit of logic. But think of it. why should any country have to let in people who hate it and want to destroy it in favor of a tyranny of some sort?
> 
> Decent intelligent people realize what these monsters are up to, and should not let them anywhere near decent law abiding folk, if it can be helped.


Decent law abiding folk are not as crafty, deceitful and evil as are Muslims.

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-17-2014)

----------


## DebateDrone

> See?
> 
> As much as I have mentioned and referred to and posted the sources and links there is always someone who doesn't bother to drink even when the water trough is before their very eyes and within drinking range.
> 
> Sigh!
> 
> Watch the video, why don'tcha Sherlock?
> 
> And we wonder why there is so much dysfunction in this society.
> ...


Does the video explain what the 2% is? 2% limit on what?

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Decent law abiding folk are not as crafty, deceitful and evil as are Muslims.


Nor do they have to lie to defend their religions!

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Does the video explain what the 2% is? 2% limit on what?


I wonder how some people manage to make it through a day without giving up all hope.

Read my sig, Brainiac.

----------


## DebateDrone

Islamaphobe: I want a 2% limit on Muslims!

DebateDrone: 2% limit on what?

Islamaphobe: A 2% limit... A 2% limit. Don't you understand English you idiot!!!

DebateDrone: :Moron:

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Does the video explain what the 2% is? 2% limit on what?





> Stream
> 
> 
> Rosepher Catervas via Google+2 months ago
> 
> Our entire world desperately needs to watch this!
> 
> 
> h/t Daniel Cavanaugh﻿
> ...

----------


## DebateDrone

I am a moron for even entertaining this 2% limit thread.

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Islamaphobe: I want a 2% limit on Muslims!
> 
> DebateDrone: 2% limit on what?
> 
> Islamaphobe: A 2% limit... A 2% limit. Don't you understand English you idiot!!!
> 
> DebateDrone:


I'm sorry.

Here.




> FrontPageMag Article
> 
> 
> *What Islam Isn't
> 
> *
> By: Dr. Peter Hammond 
> FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, April 21, 2008
> 
> ...


http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...px?ARTID=30675

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> I am a moron for even entertaining this 2% limit thread.


My bad.

 :Smile:

----------


## Trinnity

Close immigration.

----------

protectionist (11-15-2014)

----------


## protectionist

> I am a moron for even entertaining this 2% limit thread.


Your word, not mine.  But you are in the wrong for entertaining this 2% limit thread, since the US Constitution has a ZERO limit on Islam, in Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause).  The fact is, Islam has been banned by the constitution due to Islam's supremacism for 225 years.  It just happens to be another of those laws (like immigration) that exists without being enforced.  All that is needed is enforcement, and there would BE no Islam in America, and we wouldn't even be discussing this.

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-15-2014),Rutabaga (11-15-2014)

----------


## QuaseMarco

> Close immigration.


That is a good idea. We need to get a handle on what we've got and what we can send back NOW.

----------


## protectionist

> Islamaphobe: I want a 2% limit on Muslims!
> 
> DebateDrone: 2% limit on what?
> 
> Islamaphobe: A 2% limit... A 2% limit. Don't you understand English you idiot!!!
> 
> DebateDrone:



There is no such thing as Islamaphobia, or Islamaphobe.  This is a creation of Muslim propagandists who are constantly at work trying to subvert America, and all of Western civilization, (_"from within"_* ***) and transform it into an Islamic state.  A "phobia" is an irrational fear based on nothing. But fear of jihad (violent or non-violent) is perfectly rational, as established by 20,000 violent, Muslim, jihadist attacks since 9/11, and thousands of instances of Islamization in schools, universities, workplaces, various branches of the government, airports, private homes, and the public streets. In addition, false usage of the word "phobia" is offensive to those of us who suffer from a REAL mental illness of a phobia, as I do (agoraphobia).

*** * _"The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. 

(Mohamed Akram, An Explanatory Memorandum on the Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, May 22. 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21)._

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-15-2014),Rutabaga (11-17-2014)

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Close immigration.


I'm not altogether sold on this move unless the Numbers USA guy's gumballs have finally stopped talking about some far away dire events happening as a result of our immigration policies.

When he has instead substituted real life current day realities resulting from our unrealistic immigration numbers, that's when I'll support total closure.







> *Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010
> *
> Uploaded on Sep 10, 2010
> Immigration - Global humanitarian reasons for current U.S. immigration are tested in this updated version of immigration author and journalist Roy Beck's colorful presentation of data from the World Bank and U.S. Census Bureau. The 1996 version of this immigration gumballs presentation has been one of the most viewed immigration policy presentations on the internet.
> 
> 
> Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## QuaseMarco

> I am a moron for even entertaining this 2% limit thread.


Don't be so hard on yourself.

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> There is no such thing as Islamaphobia, or Islamaphobe.  This is a creation of Muslim propagandists who are constantly at work trying to subvert America, and all of Western civilization, (_"from within"_* ***) and transform it into an Islamic state.  A "phobia" is an irrational fear based on nothing. But fear of jihad (violent or non-violent) is perfectly rational, as established by 20,000 violent, Muslim, jihadist attacks since 9/11, and thousands of instances of Islamization in schools, universities, workplaces, various branches of the government, airports, private homes, and the public streets. In addition, false usage of the word "phobia" is offensive to those of us who suffer from a REAL mental illness of a phobia, as I do (agoraphobia).
> 
> *** * _"The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. 
> 
> (Mohamed Akram, An Explanatory Memorandum on the Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, May 22. 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21)._


Always a valuable source of factual information!

Thanks, protectionist!

 :Smile:

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Your word, not mine.  But you are in the wrong for entertaining this 2% limit thread, since the US Constitution has a ZERO limit on Islam, in Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause).  The fact is, Islam has been banned by the constitution due to Islam's supremacism for 225 years.  It just happens to be another of those laws (like immigration) that exists without being enforced.  All that is needed is enforcement, and there would BE no Islam in America, and we wouldn't even be discussing this.


I stand corrected!

 :Smile:

----------


## protectionist

> I stand corrected!


But your are quite right that even if not a total ban on Islam, it certainly is better to have a severe limitation on it, than none at all, and the revolting appeasement that we see so rampant from the Obama administration.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...im-Brotherhood

----------


## protectionist

> Always a valuable source of factual information!
> 
> Thanks, protectionist!


You're welcome!   :Smiley20:

----------


## old wood

> I think we should only let in the Muslims that intend to live by our laws and use our system and not those Muslims who intend to tear it down.
> 
> It's only a small bit of logic. But think of it. why should any country have to let in people who hate it and want to destroy it in favor of a tyranny of some sort?
> 
> Decent intelligent people realize what these monsters are up to, and should not let them anywhere near decent law abiding folk, if it can be helped.


Our BASIC core thing, our Constitution.. has no provision for religious stereotypes.    Quite a few Muslims who came to the USA  actually want to get away from the Jihad nutcases, the perversions of that faith. 
We SHOULD.. weed out anyone coming here with hostile intents. OBVIOUS.   Do the fucking MATH... not even 1% of Muslims in the USA advocate or try to do TERRORIST.  Many of the few Terrorists/Jihadists here... were native born... not immigrant.

Our current immigration policy...is not at all Wide Open.  Nobody...wants Terrorists to come here and do bad shit. It IS NOT on the agenda of anyone who is making policy.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Islamaphobe: I want a 2% limit on Muslims!
> 
> DebateDrone: 2% limit on what?
> 
> Islamaphobe: A 2% limit... A 2% limit. Don't you understand English you idiot!!!
> 
> DebateDrone:



are muslims even in season now?

----------


## Dan40

> What the hell is a 2% limit? 2% of what.
> 
> I wish this nation had a 0% idiot limit.


Good wish, but the Democratic Party has 43 million members.  That is 13.4% idiots right there.

----------


## Dan40

> I am a moron for even entertaining this 2% limit thread.


YOU have self destructed your 0% idiot wish. :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## EvilObamaClone

> Decent law abiding folk are not as crafty, deceitful and evil as are Muslims.


You don't know me all that well, do you?

Or Captain Kirk.
Or Bugs Bunny.

----------


## Dan40

> I think we should only let in the Muslims that intend to live by our laws and use our system and not those Muslims who intend to tear it down.
> 
> It's only a small bit of logic. But think of it. why should any country have to let in people who hate it and want to destroy it in favor of a tyranny of some sort?
> 
> Decent intelligent people realize what these monsters are up to, and should not let them anywhere near decent law abiding folk, if it can be helped.


Which muslims could be trusted to live by our laws?  Their "religion" says they cannot do so.

I'd ban them all.  Not on religious grounds, we can't do that.  But we should find in court that islam is NOT a religion but a subversive, terrorist organization.  Because it is.

The so called 'peaceful' muslims KNOW what is going on with their TERRORIST brothers, and they do NOTHING about stopping them.  That makes the 'peaceful' muslims, co-conspirators.

islam, a ruthless, bloodthirsty, world domination, imperial, totalitarian, form of government, masquerading as a religion.

----------

protectionist (11-15-2014),Rutabaga (11-17-2014)

----------


## QuaseMarco

> are muslims even in season now?


You're getting them mixed up with lobster.

----------


## QuaseMarco

> Our BASIC core thing, our Constitution.. has no provision for religious stereotypes.    Quite a few Muslims who came to the USA  actually want to get away from the Jihad nutcases, the perversions of that faith. 
> We SHOULD.. weed out anyone coming here with hostile intents. OBVIOUS.   Do the fucking MATH... not even 1% of Muslims in the USA advocate or try to do TERRORIST.  Many of the few Terrorists/Jihadists here... were native born... not immigrant.
> 
> Our current immigration policy...is not at all Wide Open.  Nobody...wants Terrorists to come here and do bad shit. It IS NOT on the agenda of anyone who is making policy.


They are Trojan's waiting for the queue to be set off.

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-17-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> You're getting them mixed up with lobster.



oops,,sorry,,

[they all look alike to me..]

----------


## protectionist

> Our BASIC core thing, our Constitution.. has no provision for religious stereotypes.    Quite a few Muslims who came to the USA  actually want to get away from the Jihad nutcases, the perversions of that faith. 
> We SHOULD.. weed out anyone coming here with hostile intents. OBVIOUS.   Do the fucking MATH... not even 1% of Muslims in the USA advocate or try to do TERRORIST.  Many of the few Terrorists/Jihadists here... were native born... not immigrant.
> 
> Our current immigration policy...is not at all Wide Open.  Nobody...wants Terrorists to come here and do bad shit. It IS NOT on the agenda of anyone who is making policy.


How do you deduce that < 1% of Muslims in the USA advocate or try to do TERRORIST ?  This can't really be ascertained.  Since, unlike Christianity, lying is acceptable in Islam (and a fundamental of it > taqiyya), and Muslims are well known for talking peace in public, while talking jihad in closed Muslim circles (ex. mosques).

It is also false to say that nobody wants Muslims to come here and do bad shit.  There are plenty of Muslims here who are quite happy to see that, and who do bad things here themselves, to non-Muslims and Muslims too.

----------


## DebateDrone

> Your word, not mine.  But you are in the wrong for entertaining this 2% limit thread, since the US Constitution has a ZERO limit on Islam, in Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause).  *The fact is, Islam has been banned by the constitution due to Islam's supremacism for 225 years.*  It just happens to be another of those laws (like immigration) that exists without being enforced.  All that is needed is enforcement, and there would BE no Islam in America, and we wouldn't even be discussing this.


That is incorrect. That is a incorrect interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy clause succinctly states that no law is superior to the laws of the US or the Constitution.

Islam is not a law... any more than is Christianity or Judaism. No matter what the practitioner believes, the tenants of a religion or of a political ideology are not laws.

A practitioner of any religion or any political ideology can write laws, and those laws can be incorporated into the body of laws in the US... But No religion or ideology can write laws that violate US Law or the US Constitution.

That is the Supremacy of the US and Constitution. All laws are inferior.

----------


## DebateDrone

> Good wish, but the Democratic Party has 43 million members.  That is 13.4% idiots right there.


Are you a democrat?

----------


## DebateDrone

> YOU have self destructed your 0% idiot wish.


Im in excellent company.. amigo.

Any day you want to debate how the 2% limit is absolute moronic bullshit, I'll be happy to discuss.

----------


## Coolwalker

Maybe it's high time for another Crusade. This time eliminate them.

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> oops,,sorry,,
> 
> [they all look alike to me..]


When will we learn to keep our racist and anti-Semitic feelings to ourselves?

We undermine our own support as well as giving the opposition ammo to use against us in debates and forums like this.

We represent a higher ideal than racism.

Don't soil what we all stand for here with your petty prejudice.

That is what we accuse them of doing. But when they can point at us and say, "pot meet kettle" it takes all of our moral superiority away from us and leaves us out of ammo.

It reduces the clash to a TIT4TAT stalemate.

Be smart, okay?

Control yourselves. 

Be like Conservatives not like Liberals.

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Maybe it's high time for another Crusade. This time eliminate them.


Only when the survivors will be sure to have enough intel to write the truth about what happened leading up to the decision.

Otherwise it will be regarded as the greatest act of ignominy of all time.

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Im in excellent company.. amigo.
> 
> Any day you want to debate how the 2% limit is absolute moronic bullshit, I'll be happy to discuss.


 @DebateDrone 

You.

Me.

Now?

 :Smile:

----------


## Coolwalker

> Only when the survivors will be sure to have enough intel to write the truth about what happened leading up to the decision.
> 
> Otherwise it will be regarded as the greatest act of ignominy of all time.


Since no one really likes us anyway unless we give them money, who cares what they say or think.

----------

Rutabaga (11-17-2014)

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> That is incorrect. That is a incorrect interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.
> 
> The Supremacy clause succinctly states that no law is superior to the laws of the US or the Constitution.
> 
> Islam is not a law... any more than is Christianity or Judaism. No matter what the practitioner believes, the tenants of a religion or of a political ideology are not laws.
> 
> A practitioner of any religion or any political ideology can write laws, and those laws can be incorporated into the body of laws in the US... But No religion or ideology can write laws that violate US Law or the US Constitution.
> 
> That is the Supremacy of the US and Constitution. All laws are inferior.


Islam the religion is a front for Islam the political system.

This suggests that protectionist may have found the key.

Banning the politicization of Islam in America but permitting the religious.

Any practice of 'Islam: the political system,' would be a crime or civil violation.

But isn't that the road embarked upon near the beginning of the 20th Century by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and repudiated this year by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the current PM?

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Since no one really likes us anyway unless we give them money, who cares what they say or think.


In the Terminator films who were the good guys?

They would be against us forever.

We'd be the bad guys.

----------


## DebateDrone

> @DebateDrone 
> 
> You.
> 
> Me.
> 
> Now?


Firstly... What would be the legal or lawful method in restricting the numbers of Muslims to 2% of the US Population.

How would someone be identified as Muslim and by whom. By what process? 

The US Census does not note religion, so how is that going to be determined?

----------


## DebateDrone

> Islam the religion is a front for Islam the political system.
> 
> This suggests that protectionist may have found the key.
> 
> Banning the politicization of Islam in America but permitting the religious.
> 
> Any practice of 'Islam: the political system,' would be a crime or civil violation.
> 
> But isn't that the road embarked upon near the beginning of the 20th Century by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and repudiated this year by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the current PM?


Do you live in the United States of America? I just want to make clear you are not speaking about some other nation that does not have a viable Constitution. Secondly, have you read and understand the US Constitution?

We have to establish your understanding of US law, protections, and rights.

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> There is no such thing as Islamaphobia, or Islamaphobe.  This is a creation of Muslim propagandists who are constantly at work trying to subvert America, and all of Western civilization, (_"from within"_* ***) and transform it into an Islamic state.  A "phobia" is an irrational fear based on nothing. But fear of jihad (violent or non-violent) is perfectly rational, as established by 20,000 violent, Muslim, jihadist attacks since 9/11, and thousands of instances of Islamization in schools, universities, workplaces, various branches of the government, airports, private homes, and the public streets. In addition, false usage of the word "phobia" is offensive to those of us who suffer from a REAL mental illness of a phobia, as I do (agoraphobia).
> 
> *** * _"The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. 
> 
> (Mohamed Akram, An Explanatory Memorandum on the Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, May 22. 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21)._



What a great public service you perform! 






Thank you, protectionist!


 :Smile: 

PK

----------

protectionist (11-17-2014)

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Do you live in the United States of America? I just want to make clear you are not speaking about some other nation that does not have a viable Constitution. Secondly, have you read and understand the US Constitution?
> 
> We have to establish your understanding of US law, protections, and rights.


Why not assume I reside in Sweden.

It makes no difference does it?

Everything I post applies no matter where I am unless I advise to the contrary.

All you need to understand is that the things Muslims do and say and their seldom spoken intent and ambition is the domination of the Earth for Allah.

That's the impetus.

The solution is to enforce the Supremacy clause.

If for some reason that proves impossible or inadvisable Plan B would be 2% and no more.

Why?

So we can prevent this.





(Ed. Tip of the cap to @DonGlock26 for originally posting this great video.)




> *THE FIVE STAGES OF ISLAM
> *
> by Richard Butrick
> 
> Forget the Five Pillars[1] of Islam. It is the Five Stages of Islam that threaten the fundamental freedoms of Western Democracy. Freedoms which include freedom of thought, expression, and association and the crucial derived right of freedom of the press. We should never forget that "Islam" means submission -- the opposite of self-determination and Enlightenment values.
> 
> 
> Six years ago Dr. Peter Hammond published[2] a remarkable book which included a statistical study of the correlation between Muslim to non-Muslim population ratios and the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam. The stages are the same in 2011 but the demographics have changed to show an alarming progression. Many European nations and the U.S. are on the cusp of moving to a higher bracket. The demographics change but the story is the same. First comes the taqiyya and[3] the kitman; then comes the Sword of Islam. Imam[4] Rauf, the Ground Zero Mosque promoter, is the current master of taqiyya. He has gulled everyone from Bloomberg[5] to Maureen Dowd[6] of the NYT -- who fanaticizes over male Muslims. Expect doppelgangers of Khomeini for stage 5 and Islamic PEACE at last.
> 
> ...


 
This article was published July 6, 2011 in American Thinker: 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/..._of_islam.html

----------

DonGlock26 (11-17-2014),protectionist (11-17-2014)

----------


## Coolwalker

> In the Terminator films who were the good guys?
> 
> They would be against us forever.
> 
> We'd be the bad guys.


Appearance is not important; winning is.

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-17-2014)

----------


## Coolwalker

> Do you live in the United States of America? I just want to make clear you are not speaking about some other nation that does not have a viable Constitution. Secondly, have you read and understand the US Constitution?
> 
> We have to establish your understanding of US law, protections, and rights.


..."all enemies foreign and domestic..."

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-17-2014)

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Appearance is not important; winning is.


I'm getting an LSD flashback I think...

Wait... hold it...No...

Yes, it's a flashback but not a drug related one.

It's a flashback from the heady days right after the invasion of Iraq and my boss and I were discussing the success the 3rd ID was having.

He was loving the ass kickings our soldiers were dispensing across the desert.

I cautioned him about a possible insurgency.

You know what happened after that.

Until and unless you kill every one who has a soft spot in their hearts for the guerillas you killed and the role you occupy in the people's minds, you will never win.

You will be Israel v Palestine.

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Appearance is not important; winning is.


And I am a fan of LTC Ralph Peters USA (Ret.)




> HELLO TO ALL:
> This essay is extracted from Ralph Peters' new book, "When Devils Walk the Earth." It is a must-read. The man is prescient. If you focus on nothing else, peruse the last point; Number 25. I added the "bold" and red color to points I thought ought to receive major emphasis.......Ed
> (Ed is Major General, USA, Ret, Ed Browne)
> Chapter III. Fighting Terror: Do's and Don'ts for a Superpower:
> 1. Be feared!
> 2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you possibly can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with practical vs. apocalyptic terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric, seek your destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer: you cannot hope for success if you only cut out part of the tumor. For the apocalyptic terrorist, evading your efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest successes will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.
> 3. Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!
> 4. Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.
> 5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable. Focus on keeping or enhancing the support from allies and well-disposed clients, but do not waste an inordinate amount of effort trying to win unwinnable hearts and minds. Convince hostile populations through victory.
> ...

----------


## Rutabaga

> That is incorrect. That is a incorrect interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.
> 
> The Supremacy clause succinctly states that no law is superior to the laws of the US or the Constitution.
> 
> Islam is not a law... any more than is Christianity or Judaism. No matter what the practitioner believes, the tenants of a religion or of a political ideology are not laws.
> 
> A practitioner of any religion or any political ideology can write laws, and those laws can be incorporated into the body of laws in the US... But No religion or ideology can write laws that violate US Law or the US Constitution.
> 
> That is the Supremacy of the US and Constitution. All laws are inferior.


in the UK, france, and others, the growing muslim populations establish a muslim section, and [most often successfully] petitioned the host countries courts to allow the muslims to enact, enforce and mandate *sharia law* to be enforced by muslims only in their "sections"..their own police, judges, etc..

they petitioned a court in nyc to do the same here...

islam is a blueprint on how muslims must live..
and sharia is the only law they recognize...

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-17-2014)

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Firstly... What would be the legal or lawful method in restricting the numbers of Muslims to 2% of the US Population.
> 
> How would someone be identified as Muslim and by whom. By what process? 
> 
> The US Census does not note religion, so how is that going to be determined?






Where there is a will there is a way.

JFK was no rocket scientist but he knew what was best for America and he challenged us to do what was hard and he dared us to win.

And we did.

And when he made the announcement the technology wasn't even yet created which could make his dream possible.

Yet it was created when it needed to be.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

To avoid becoming the next Islamicized victim of Jihad we must either apply teeth to enforcing the Supremacy Clause prohibiting another political system to be practiced in this country or as a Plan B, the imposition of limits on greater numbers of muslims than 2% of the total US population.

And an amount which would need to be determined which would apply in cities and large enclaves.

Once the American public gets fed up with all of the Islamic B.S. they see in the news they will be HUNGRY for a solution.

Either 0% or 2%.

It will save Muslim lives and Non-Muslims' too.

----------


## Rutabaga

> When will we learn to keep our racist and anti-Semitic feelings to ourselves?
> 
> We undermine our own support as well as giving the opposition ammo to use against us in debates and forums like this.
> 
> We represent a higher ideal than racism.
> 
> Don't soil what we all stand for here with your petty prejudice.
> 
> That is what we accuse them of doing. But when they can point at us and say, "pot meet kettle" it takes all of our moral superiority away from us and leaves us out of ammo.
> ...




but, but, but,,they *do* all look alike to me!

lobster/muslim,,,muslim/lobster...yep,,dont know how you can tell them apart...

like obama and curious george...2 peas in a pod!

[george could have been barrys son ya know]

----------


## protectionist

> That is incorrect. That is a incorrect interpretation of the Supremacy Clause.
> 
> The Supremacy clause succinctly states that no law is superior to the laws of the US or the Constitution.
> 
> Islam is not a law... any more than is Christianity or Judaism. No matter what the practitioner believes, the tenants of a religion or of a political ideology are not laws.
> 
> A practitioner of any religion or any political ideology can write laws, and those laws can be incorporated into the body of laws in the US... But No religion or ideology can write laws that violate US Law or the US Constitution.
> 
> That is the Supremacy of the US and Constitution. All laws are inferior.


Your post is incorrect in 2 ways.  first. Islam certainly is law.  It is Sharia law.  This is from the Koran and is inseperable from Islam.  And it isn't difficult to note that Sharia law is highly at odds with US laws on sex discrimination, battery, sexual battery, etc.

Secondly, we need not even discuss law other than the Constitution itself. Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause). Islam, being a supremacist ideology, is clearly in violation.

_"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United Stateswhich shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."_

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-17-2014),Rutabaga (11-17-2014)

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> but, but, but,,they *do* all look alike to me!
> 
> lobster/muslim,,,muslim/lobster...yep,,dont know how you can tell them apart...
> 
> like obama and curious george...2 peas in a pod!
> 
> [george could have been barrys son ya know]


Sorry.

I guess you may not have known that there are Muslims of all colors and nationalities.

Here are some examples.

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Your post is incorrect in 2 ways.  first. Islam certainly is law.  It is Sharia law.  This is from the Koran and is inseperable from Islam.  And it isn't difficult to note that Sharia law is highly at odds with US laws on sex discrimination, battery, sexual battery, etc.
> 
> Secondly, we need even discuss law other than the Constitution itself. Article 6, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause). Islam, being a supremacist ideology, is clearly in violation.
> 
> _"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United Stateswhich shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."_


It's a shame you can't charge for the education we Conservatives give away for free on these pages.

Solid post!

 :Smile: 

PK

----------


## protectionist

> And I am a fan of LTC Ralph Peters USA (Ret.)


Lt. Col. Ralph Peters is a frequent commentator on the Fox news shows.  There few commentators (if any) whose military opinions I value more highly than his.  He is very straightfoward, pulls no punches, and it would be nice if there were more speakers around, as knowledgable and direct as Col. Peters.

----------

Pregnar Kraps (11-17-2014)

----------


## protectionist

> What a great public service you perform! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, protectionist!    PK


You're very welcome.   :Smiley20:

----------


## Pregnar Kraps

> Lt. Col. Ralph Peters is a frequent commentator on the Fox news shows.  There few commentators (if any) whose military opinions I value more highly than his.  He is very straightfoward, pulls no punches, and it would be nice if there were more speakers around, as knowledgable and direct as Col. Peters.


When I was contemplating support for Gen. Wesley Clark for a possible POTUS run it was LTC Peters' opinion of Clark which made me eliminate him from consideration.

He is a top quality military analyst.

It doesn't surprise me that you are also a fan of his!

 :Smile: 

PK

----------


## Rutabaga

> Maybe it's high time for another Crusade. This time eliminate them.


how long have the muzzys and christians been killing each other?  2000+ years?

they are in every country on the globe and expanding..europe is lost...as is australia and some others...

but here,, *right now,* we have a managable number of muzzys already living within our borders....we have enough problems to deal with here, we dont need to import any more...

make no mistake...we see muslim politicians/activists advocating for more and more muslim only schools, courts, laws, police, etc..

they are not here to be absorbed into American society, they are here to establish sharia law wherever they can and will not stop until every village, town, city, state,country and hemisphere and all the people there are either converted or dead..

thats their plan, mission, goal...and while you may not think sharia law could be so bad,,you really should read it from the horses mouth..the koran is a step by step instruction and operation manual on how to live as muslim...

gay?  they kill you..
women? you are property, easily killed if your husband says you shamed him..
free speach?  yea,,if you like giving it from a spike on a fence...
thief? yes, they really do cut your hand off..


but then, we Americans have a violent past...yep,,revolutionary war, civil war, ww1 ww2 korea, vietnam, mideast etc...yes indeed,,come to think of it,,we have a *very* violent past...hell, we killed more of each other in the civil war, than all the rest of our conflicts combined! 
and all the guns we have here...lots and lots and lots of guns...

and dont forget the Native Americans...
damn near made them extinct..


all we need is a little game of "cowboys and muslims"...









baby steps...

----------


## protectionist

> Firstly... What would be the legal or lawful method in restricting the numbers of Muslims to 2% of the US Population.
> 
> How would someone be identified as Muslim and by whom. By what process? 
> 
> The US Census does not note religion, so how is that going to be determined?


Islam is not a religion.  For 1400 years, Islam has been using religion as a shield from criticism it of course deserves, for it's many immoral (and in the US ILLEGAL) practices (mass genocide, wife-beating, rape, pedophilia, slavery, lying, animal cruelty/killing, severe sex discrimination, censorship, etc)  Most people around the world do not consider Islam to be a religion, nor do some countries (ex. Italy, Myanmar)

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/0...s-tax-status-2

----------

Rutabaga (11-17-2014)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Sorry.
> 
> I guess you may not have known that there are Muslims of all colors and nationalities.
> 
> Here are some examples.



are those the lobsters or muslims?

----------


## Dan40

> Im in excellent company.. amigo.
> 
> Any day you want to debate how the 2% limit is absolute moronic bullshit, I'll be happy to discuss.


Your question in post #36 tells me you have no chance going in.  And if you ever see a "Sense of Humor" store, get in there and buy ANYTHING they have in stock.  You're fresh out.

And I'll be happy to debate you with these rules.

1. You are not permitted to lie.

2. You are REQUIRED to prove from non-partisan, non-media, sources anything you claim to be fact.


Now to answer your question from #36.

When I was really young, inexperienced, and STUPID, I WAS a Democrat.

I gained wisdom, and experience, and the ability to detect lies over the years.  Now I'm a REGISTERED Independent.  Not a Republican but very conservative.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Islam is, among many other things, a religion. 

There is an inner spiritual life going on there, a desire to commune with God or the Absolute.

I've read enough in the Muslim tradition to know that.

However, just because you are a religion doesn't mean you are GOOD and believe correctly.

A LOT of black-hearted evil has crept into islam since the Selafist school arose in the 18th century.

----------


## DonGlock26

Why do we need any immigration other than highly skilled people with our current economy? 

That said, even if the economy were good, why do we need Muslim immigration given the problems that Europe is having?

----------

Rutabaga (11-18-2014),usfan (11-19-2014)

----------


## protectionist

> Islam is, among many other things, a religion. 
> 
> There is an inner spiritual life going on there, a desire to commune with God or the Absolute.
> 
> I've read enough in the Muslim tradition to know that.
> 
> However, just because you are a religion doesn't mean you are GOOD and believe correctly.
> 
> A LOT of black-hearted evil has crept into islam since the Selafist school arose in the 18th century.


The evil suras of the Koran didn't appear in the 18th century.  They've been there right from the beginning of Islam (622 AD)  Examples  >> 8:12, 9:5, 9:123, 4:34, 65:4. etc

----------


## protectionist

> Why do we need any immigration other than highly skilled people with our current economy? 
> 
> That said, even if the economy were good, why do we need Muslim immigration given the problems that Europe is having?


Answer to that is 2 simple words >>  WE DON'T.

----------


## Rutabaga

> *Why do we need* any immigration other than highly skilled people with our current economy? 
> 
> That said, even if the economy were good, *why do we need Muslim immigration* given the problems that Europe is having?


we have no need for more muslims...its not like they bring a lot of positive with them....dump what we already have here, hang a "no vacancy" sign on the statue of liberty and concentrate all our effort and resources on this country,,on these people, and let the others deal with each other..

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> I think we should only let in the Muslims that intend to live by our laws and use our system and not those Muslims who intend to tear it down.
> 
> It's only a small bit of logic. But think of it. why should any country have to let in people who hate it and want to destroy it in favor of a tyranny of some sort?
> 
> Decent intelligent people realize what these monsters are up to, and should not let them anywhere near decent law abiding folk, if it can be helped.



How would you know who would and who wouldn't.  Unfortunately they come with a "TERRORIST​" stamp on their forehead.

----------


## usfan

I vote no.  I do not think religious orientation should be a factor in american immigration.  We can make limits based on education or economics, or regional location, but discriminating based on religion is anti american.

I see the problem.. & it is one that is more common in europe.  But we have other more libertarian methods of dealing with bigotry, rather than to fight fire with fire.  We can fight oppression & bigotry with freedom!  It has worked for us in the past, & it can work again.  We should try it.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Islamaphobe: I want a 2% limit on Muslims!
> 
> DebateDrone: 2% limit on what?
> 
> Islamaphobe: A 2% limit... A 2% limit. Don't you understand English you idiot!!!
> 
> DebateDrone:



You sir or madam are merely spamming aren't you????

Any idiot would understand the 2% referred to their percentage of the total population of the United States.  Do you need to know what percentage, population or United States means????

----------


## DebateDrone

> You sir or madam are merely spamming aren't you????
> 
> Any idiot would understand the 2% referred to their percentage of the total population of the United States.  Do you need to know what percentage, population or United States means????



My confusion did not come in the meaning of the moronic question...It came in that anyone would seriously propose that moronic question.

----------


## usfan

Øbama is a bigot, sees a racist behind every tree, & wants to fight his imaginary boogie men with even more racism & bigotry.  But americans of all colors should not be baited into his race centered world.  We should keep the dream of freedom, tolerance, & equality alive, & ridicule or shout down the calls for a race war.

The race baiters of ANY color should be tarred & feathered.. ignored as haters & extremists, instead of coddled & tiptoed around.  Until we get to that point, all the talk of 'racial equality' is hypocritical bleating.  They just use racism to fight their imaginary racist boogiemen.

----------


## Dan40

> My confusion did not come in the meaning of the moronic question...It came in that anyone would seriously propose that moronic question.


Yes, 2% is less than wise.  0% would be perfect.

----------

