Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (907294)	12/10/2015 3:29:36 PM
From: TopCat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573428

>>>Now I'm reconsidering, and it's because of his desire to ban Muslim immigration. You and so many other people ignore what he really said......he said UNTIL our government gets it's act together.....which it clearly hasn't. Just in the San Bernardino case, it's clear our government didn't properly vet the woman. Trump is right....and it isn't an anti-Muslim agenda. It's common sense.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (907294)	12/10/2015 3:34:22 PM
From: gronieel2	Respond to of 1573428

So Tennybaby, do those rotten Nazis have right to march down the Main Street of Jewish Skokie? Or is that shouting fire in the Synagogue? Can Christians protest in Little Kabul? Whattabout a Klan rally in South Central LA.?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (907294)	12/10/2015 4:04:31 PM
From: Bill	3 Recommendations Recommended By jlallen TideGlider TopCat Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573428

First, Trump's proposal, while a bit crude, is perfectly constitutional. The US has the legal authority to admit or deny entrance to any foreigner it chooses on any basis, religion included. First Amendment protections are not applicable and any challenge on that basis would be easily defended. Second, Trump's proposal was for a temporary halt, a pause, in order for the congress to better assess the problem and devise a legislative response. Third, I would have preferred Trump limit the scope of the ban to certain countries, rather than a religion. That's what Jimmy Carter did and hardly anyone noticed or complained.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (907294)	12/10/2015 4:09:41 PM
From: POKERSAM	1 Recommendation Recommended By PKRBKR Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573428

Tenchusatsu - I would like to suggest that you spend some time studying the religion of Islam. Study Sharia Law. If you do you will find that Islam is completely inconsistent with the Constitution of the US. Supporting the Constitution of the US is inconsistent with Islam. Are you saying that the first amendment protects any and all religions regardless of what their beliefs and practices may be. The California shooters were practicing their religion. The Paris killers were practicing their religion. The 9/11 terrorists were practicing their religion. Those enslaving women and children in the Middle East are practicing their religion. There is religion that does not threaten American's Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness and then there is Islam. It is against Islam to kill the innocent. Islam is a religion of Peace. The problem is that an apostate or infidel is not innocent nor should he have peace. When a muslim kills an infidel it is fully condoned and taught by Islam to be a blessed righteous act. When a member of ISIS slices the head off a Christian or apostate muslim he is performing a sacred practice of his religion. He is a true believer in Islam. He is very, very muslim. He is a real muslim. Perhaps you need to give your view of the first amendment a little more thought. Your freedom ends where mine begins. The Government cannot impose a religion on any American. By the same token it cannot allow anyone else to impose a religion on anyone else. It cannot allow anyone to practice their religion in the US that includes the killing or enslaving of American citizens.which is contrary to the Constitution of the United States.