Newt Gingrich Says We Should ‘Test Every Person’ Of Muslim Descent

a reply to: Sremmos80

You mean the coalition of the paid?

If you meant congress by that then yes.

en.wikipedia.org...

If not then hyperbole.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The odds of an attack being a false flag are so microscopic its not even funny. Sure there is a possibility that any given attack could have really been perpetrated by the country's own government, but in the west such things happen close to never. All accusations of false flag activity fall apart when using just a little bit of logic and critical thinking since most false flag narratives utilize quite a few contradicting points to tell their story.

In your opinion, what would you do that is logical that would actually work? Me myself, I don't know without really taking time to think hard. Newts plan could work but indeed at the expense of our freedom/liberties, which could be the ultimate end goal. In fact it is the end goal, just not sure if this particular instance IS, or if they are sincere.

I think we are already doing it. Go about our lives and let law enforcement do the job we've always been paying them to do. They already have the tools to handle these things.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think our concept of citizenship is dated to the point where it is now functionally meaningless.

Non-citizens have all the rights and benefits of citizenship, as per supreme court rulings.

They just don't have to serve on a jury. That's about it.

The government doesn't even use the term "citizen" any more. It's a meaningless noun.

Folks can't we say religious perseecution is wrong. These Muslims were targeted far higher by their own people than isis has targeted the west. Most of Ramuadan was attacking moderate Muslims who won't declare allegiance.

Let's debate real stuff.

Liberal friends talking to Isis or any group that has declared the destruction of the us AND carried out attacks is treason or sedition. Don't give a free speech excuse. If you were caught even talking to them with any evidence a warrant should be issued and the punishment should be based on a review from a judge but every form should have a serious punishment. If it was a disturbed kid putting his feelers out he still gets slapped pretty hard. Of its actual aid or recruitment then it's the most severe. I think money should be the same as having done the attack itself. This is one of the only death penalty situations I see an arguement for.

Conservatives friends.

Your not conservative if you think religious testing makes sense at all. Hundreds of Muslims if not thousands were slaughtered by Isis the past month.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I don't think there is a good understanding of the constitution says or what is legal or treason here.

If the vast majority of American voters want to change our legal system (in any way) they can vote for congress people who will make that laws - including constitutional amendments. No treason there.

Sharia Law is not real popular right now, nor in the foresee able future. Take a chill pill. I think you might worry about some existing laws that have been ground into mush over the past 100 years: the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10 amendments, ratified in 1791.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: redempsh
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're a resident, and can stay here unless you also fail a sanity test, like say the mmpi

And then what if you fail the sanity test?

You get a tattoo on your arm and are required to wear an arm band. Even if you do pass the test....

a reply to: windword

Right, you keep telling yourself that.

Might as well bring up the crusades while we're at it. Criticizing the past helps some deal with the present.

Well since people accept regulation of the second.

Why don't you support regulation of the first ?

Can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: neo96
Well since people accept regulation of the second.

Why don't you support regulation of the first ?

Can't have it both ways.

The first is regulated.

I know this video has been shown here before and maybe it's some sort of "fake" , IDK ? If this video does reflect a truth that the majority of "non-extremist" Muslims absolutely believe in laws that are not compatible with western laws, which is a big problem for the host country, but that it is unthinkable and unfair that they should be deported because of these beliefs is as bad as any sense of entitlement we are seeing so much of these days.



God only knows, and I tend to roll with "Team Jesus", that America and it's allies Governments have exploited and terrorized the Middle East for Profits for the Elite, and that has displaced millions of people and destabilized the whole region. The good people of this World are doing their best to BRING DOWN these Corrupt Criminals of Humanity...having said that , imploding our own Countries because of crimes we had No control over seems pretty unthinkable and unfair too.....

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think we are already doing it. Go about our lives and let law enforcement do the job we've always been paying them to do. They already have the tools to handle these things.

hahahah! Once the roots have taken hold, law enforcement will once again have to "do their jobs" with one hand tied behind their backs or risk being demonized. Don't let it take hold in the first place!

Politicians tend to operate in a crisis mode management style rather than a solutions and prevention style. So, nip it in the bud and don't let it grow roots and branches.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
Well since people accept regulation of the second.

Why don't you support regulation of the first ?

Can't have it both ways.

The first is regulated.

Not to the extent the second.

IE TESTING which by any other name is a background check.

a reply to: windword

Too late too littler, for born and already Islamic citizens, maybe they should test those that are been brought as today by the Obama administration.

And for testing, how about banning Sharia law in the US, that will no take away for "moderates and peaceful Muslims their right to worship and they will be free from the ties of fundamentalism that comes for the believers of Sharia, and all those Imans that come like rats to settle where refuges immigrants congregate to push for strict sharia worshiping at the scaremongering of having their left behind families in the middle east punished.

a reply to: neo96

It was more about who we got to go with us, I know it was voted for.

a reply to: queenofswords

What about Omerta? That doesn't exactly jive with Western laws. Are you for deporting anyone who is a member of La Cosa Nostra? What about those that glorify it? Should we deport Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola?

What about the Amish? Some of their laws don't mesh up with the laws of the US. Yet they're allowed autonomy and they don't have to pay taxes on top of it.

I'm a white, blue eyed, blonde haired, male. What if I converted to Islam and believed in Sharia. Where exactly would I be deported to? There are devout Muslims that have lived here for generations. Where exactly are they going to be deported to?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: windword

Right, you keep telling yourself that.

Might as well bring up the crusades while we're at it. Criticizing the past helps some deal with the present.

That's gotta be the dumbest retort I've ever seen you post!

As if the Gulf War doesn't have anything to do with the terrorism we're seeing today. Keep deflecting. You're neither impressing nor fooling anyone.

a reply to: queenofswords

Don't let what take hold? Muslims beliefs? That's unconstitutional. The fact of the matter is that cops already work with "one hand tied behind their backs." It's called the Constitution and its what prevents every cop from braining you just because they thought you were doing something wrong.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
Well since people accept regulation of the second.

Why don't you support regulation of the first ?

Can't have it both ways.

The first is regulated.

Not to the extent the second.

IE TESTING which by any other name is a background check.

It's actually more regulated than the second; being that it applies to religion, speech and the media all at once and the 2nd only applies to guns (well actually guns and militia but pro 2nders like to ignore that part of the Amendment).

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well you are a using a false equivalency, sorry can't help you there.

Just because it didn't happen then, doesn't change now.

a reply to: windword

That's gotta be the dumbest retort I've ever seen you post!

As if the Gulf War doesn't have anything to do with the terrorism we're seeing today. Keep deflecting. You're neither impressing nor fooling anyone.

I'm not the one bringing up the Gulf war and Christianity in a thread about Islamic terrorism and Newt Gingrich. I'm not sure you know what "deflect" means.