The Far-right Delusion

[noseall]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Protecting The United States From Foreign Terrorists And Other National Security And Public Safety Threats

PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS By the authority vested in me as President by

www.whitehouse.gov

PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER

NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

click on link for full text.

Protecting the USA from terrorists or just Muslims?

 

[noseall]

Frilly the Muslim hater

He's not alone. They will lie with impunity, deflect and scrabble and squirm their hateful ideology into any thread, without the slightest shame.

 

[Mottie]

Frilly the Muslim hater

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

You got any?

 

[noseall]

You got any?

As you once succinctly put it in the Rape Gangs thread - "it's cultural" But was then too cowardly to verify or follow up when uncomfortable questions were put to you.

 

[fillyboy]

Frilly the Muslim hater supports a Muslim ban that will affect perfectly innocent, decent people.

Frilly has never offered any sympathy for the thousands of innocent Palestinians that have suffered appalling atrocities in Gaza. Why? A = because Filly doesn’t care about Muslims he doesn’t like them.

Just had a flick through the whole document and can't see any mention of the word 'muslim'.

What part of the document/decree do you disagree with, more importantly, why do you feel any country should allow terrorists or those that wish us harm into the country.

It seems a bit of an odd desire doesn't it?

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

But you prefer that we do the opposite. **** me.

 

[Mottie]

Notch wants to be seen to be fair to all people. If they want to come over here and do us harm because of their religious beliefs, then Notch wants them to have that right. S'only fair, innit?

 

[Odds]

Just had a flick through the whole document and can't see any mention of the word 'muslim'.

What part of the document/decree do you disagree with, more importantly, why do you feel any country should allow terrorists or those that wish us harm into the country.

It seems a bit of an odd desire doesn't it?

Section 1. Policy and Purpose. (a) It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

But you prefer that we do the opposite. **** me.

Read it more closely and ask yourself why the Muslim Public Affairs Council also cautioned in a statement that enhancing vetting measures for specific countries risks “functioning as a de facto Muslim ban under the guise of security protocols”...and Parts of the decree also specifically target Palestinians and Palestinian rights supporters, Jamshidi added.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Notch wants to be seen to be fair to all people. If they want to come over here and do us harm because of their religious beliefs, then Notch wants them to have that right. S'only fair, innit?

As he ever espoused that thought or comment?

I don't think so, but may have missed it

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Read it more closely and ask yourself why the Muslim Public Affairs Council also cautioned in a statement that enhancing vetting measures for specific countries risks “functioning as a de facto Muslim ban under the guise of security protocols”...and Parts of the decree also specifically target Palestinians and Palestinian rights supporters, Jamshidi added.

Needs to see actual words, can't understand implications maybe

 

[Mottie]

As he ever espoused that thought or comment? I don't think so, but may have missed it

Have I ever espoused the thought that I hate Muslims? Notch says I have and I can’t see where you challenged that but I may have missed it.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Protecting the USA from terrorists or just Muslims?

Same difference, Boyo.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

their hateful ideology

That sounds like an excellent description of the ROP death cult.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Have I ever espoused the thought that I hate Muslims? Notch says I have and I can’t see where you challenged that but I may have missed it.

It's fairly obvious. Want to deny you hate Muslims ?

 

[noseall]

Same difference, Boyo.

So all the white murdering terrorists are OK for Trump and the RWR - gotcha.

 

[Mottie]

It's fairly obvious. Want to deny you hate Muslims ?

Yes, I do want to deny I hate Muslims.

But, but, but,

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

So if you or Notch assert something, as long as it's obvious to you that’s okay but if anyone else thinks something is obvious, they must provide proof or evidence? Get out of it, you daft ****!