Trump Officially a Fascist Little Bitch

[john cena]

"Trump also refused to rule out warrantless searches as part of his call for increased surveillance"

"I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule."

“Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy,” Trump said. “We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

I think it's time for a part two on him pretty soon..

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/trump-crosses-the-nazi-line-maybe-muslims-should-wear-special-id-badges/#.Vk4JHAqE0wQ

Is this necessary security or a tyrannical power grab?

[Donnadogsoth]

I think all Muslims should be required to swear an oath on the Koran, Allah and the Prophet that they renounce both violent Jihad and Sharia and denounce all who do not.

[dsayers]

All politicians are going to have a stance that somebody doesn't like. The problem is with the acceptance of people existing in different, opposing moral categories. People think they have to choose between persons A and B, so they are distracted from the question of whether or not either can legitimately initiate the use of force against people.

[AccuTron]

I think all Muslims should be required to swear an oath on the Koran, Allah and the Prophet that they renounce both violent Jihad and Sharia and denounce all who do not.

Yow!  Very interesting suggestion, and hoo-boy would that start a ruckus.  I'd love to see it happen.  Part of the new citizenship process?

I just read the article.  Things which stand out for me:

 

-- what the !%^& is an ID card with faith supposed to actually do?  The idea in itself is abhorrent, but what would it actually achieve?  I'm stumped.  Hi, I'm muslim, says so on my card.  Okay, that demonstrates what?  

 

-- I give a plus to Trump for stirring the pot.  Current politicians are lame, cannot be honest.  Afraid to hurt feelings, lose votes.  So discussion is muted.  Trump pokes it with a stick.

 

-- Sigh.  That one again.  " which ultimately led to the deportation and murder of 6 million Jews."

 

There are a few topics I've delved into over the years, holocaust fraud is one of them.  This is very much like the climate fraud, anyone who points out anything factual is anti-semitic/climate-denier.  Wrong, we are seeking honesty, and those that benefit, or are just lazy, slander so easily.  The climate thing is all fraud, as well covered elsewhere here.  The holocaust thing is true at core, but pumped with lies quite a bit (begging the question of why the original harm wasn't bad enough that making up stuff is required).  

 

The 6 million figure apparently comes from (and I don't know if I have a link) an article by a Zionist writer (which is perfectly fine) in the middle of the war, like 1941 or 1943, who was writing an article about what could happen if all the jews in Europe were murdered.  He took census data from European countries, added up the jews, it came to 6 million.  He was honestly just using a possible worst case.  But it was picked up after the war, as a claimed statistic.  Recall, huge propaganda of USSR vs. Nazi, plus huge efforts to justify the creation of Israel.  Fact distortion is inherent.

[BaconForAllah]

Yeah, unfortunately the jihadis have had the question of using force against people answered for them since around 1400 years ago.

[shirgall]

I think all Muslims should be required to swear an oath on the Koran, Allah and the Prophet that they renounce both violent Jihad and Sharia and denounce all who do not.

That's great if they are true believers... but most so-called religious folks cherry-pick the rules they follow, and that can include their oaths. A little lie is overshadowed by the greater truth, and so on.

[Donnadogsoth]

That's great if they are true believers... but most so-called religious folks cherry-pick the rules they follow, and that can include their oaths. A little lie is overshadowed by the greater truth, and so on.

 

It probably wouldn't even deter the true believers.

 

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=taqiyya

[Mister Mister]

I think all Muslims should be required to swear an oath on the Koran, Allah and the Prophet that they renounce both violent Jihad and Sharia and denounce all who do not.

What would you do to those who refuse?

[shirgall]

What would you do to those who refuse?

 

I've got the higher goal of getting past Bronze Age superstitions. For the most part I'd love a test of values, but barring that I'll take "if they couldn't pass the background check to own a gun, they shouldn't vote and shouldn't enter the country."

[regevdl]

And who is to say that the Jihadists are true believers?  I could go around leaving a bloody trail behind me and claim I am the most purest form of Belief XYZ and everyone would take my word for it?  

 

I know this is a teeter-totter thought and I am trying to work through the logic of it but we have all heard that not all Muslims are terrorists.  And that is a true statement.  But currently, all conventional terrorists are Muslim.

 

Now, I live in the Middle East and one event that occurred just over a year ago really stuck out in terms of this 'they are true believers'.  That is: In Palestine, a young man devoted his life to studying the Koran.  He was devoted to his congregation, etc.  His community and religious community noticed he was becoming more and more extreme and they ostracized him.  They kicked him out of the congregation, his family denounced him, etc.  And in their culture..when you are ostracized...YOU ARE OSTRACIZED...this is not just 'unfriending' on FB.  lol  

 

After that he went out and killed a bunch of Jews in the name of his 'devotion to his religion'.  Now..... who was more Muslim?  Who was the better believer?  Him or his congregation?  And of course it's never news when a congregation does this...only when one of them goes out and murders a bunch of people.  So it's hard to know how often this actually occurs.

 

My concern is the same concern when say, when kids act out and people say.... 'oh they are just being kids...' or 'oh...that's just the age'.  And My reply is, no...it's because everyone walks around with that excuse and doesn't teach them otherwise.

 

If we go around saying...oh...that's just their belief...it's borderline deterministic.  I think that's why we should ask more.. ok, the guy who kills and the guy who rejects those who kill...who is being more true to Islam?

[thebeardslastcall]

If you support terrorists you are a terrorist, regardless of whether you're the one blowing yourself up or not. If you support the state you are the state. If you support a violent superstition then whether or not you're part of the minority that takes it extreme doesn't spare you from some guiltiness. One of the freaky things about statism and violent religions is how everyone becomes to some degree put under duress as they risk or don't risk their life to oppose the violence and lies. Morality in the way most people care about it and that is more relevant only matters when it's in opposition to evil at some level of threat. If people were getting some obvious and easy benefit with no risk for doing the right thing that it's not fighting evil, because it's a given. If someone is in danger for renouncing the religion then you can't say it's not a violent religion. If they're not under such threat then giving up the religion should be easy and they'd have no good reason not to do it if they wanted to move towards rationality and honesty. So while the religion may be rampant are people giving it up like some Christians do or is there a notably lower defection rate, implying it is much more violent in current practice?

But really, why should America let these people in? You should only let people immigrate if they're going to benefit the society they join and Muslims, I would argue, tend to be distinctly less advantageous. Why put qualified good immigrant applicants through a huge ringer just to let some damn refugees through with ease because why? If this was sovereign land in a free society we'd send the ships back where they came from and not let them ashore as we'd have gotten rid of violent people who could give them a beachhead. Now the state serves as that beachhead, not to protect Americans, but to undermine and endanger them further beyond the danger the state already presents.

 

Religious freedom isn't the freedom to be violent under the guise of a religion. I'm not saying we should kick out all religious people (or any really), but we have good reason to be picky about who is allowed in, especially if they're rationally undermined by a more dangerous religion and pose an extra threat.

Every religious person cherry-picks, but what they are cherry picking from is relevant, whether they acknowledge it or not as are the current trends in various interpretations of the religious text. Tricky thing is Muslims are doing acts of terrorism, but so too are state back Christians fighting in the US military directed by a Christian Commander in Chief. So which religion is really killing more people? Do the presidents not say things like "God Bless America" and do other religious things to back up their actions before and after they order hundreds of thousands of people killed? Muslim extremism is what Americans have a chance of fighting off right now, so that's a logical place to start and then dealing with the statism and religiosity that supports it will continue in a less popular strong and polarizing fashion as dealing with Muslim extremism and immigration (which includes mostly non-Muslims).

 

As for warrantless searches, yeah, no surprise he's for that crap. He's an ego heavy guy that wants to be president, he obviously doesn't have a strong moral base for his choices and doesn't mind ruling people. I'd guess he'd gladly be a ruthless king if he could to get things done his way. If you're pondering a Trump presidency don't confuse him for a moral person that will stand up for individual rights.

[AynRand]

I think all Muslims should be required to swear an oath on the Koran, Allah and the Prophet that they renounce both violent Jihad and Sharia and denounce all who do not.

And just to point out the obvious. I don't think you are really a Muslim unless you support violent Jihad and Sharia law. It's kinda a major part of the koran.

[RCali]

And just to point out the obvious. I don't think you are really a Muslim unless you support violent Jihad and Sharia law. It's kinda a major part of the koran.

 

This. Only people who haven't read any part of the Quran don't know how important jihad is. I'll share this video I've also shared on another thread. Bill Warner works greatly on sharing his work on the study of Islam.

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The office itself is fascist. Donald is just being honest. 

[VolT]

Here, I'll add some fuel to your fire.

 

"Republican Trump calls for database to track U.S. Muslims: NBC" - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0T91Z220151120

[AncapFTW]

This. Only people who haven't read any part of the Quran don't know how important jihad is. I'll share this video I've also shared on another thread. Bill Warner works greatly on sharing his work on the study of Islam.

It's not the only religion to do this, you know.  Read the old testament.  Many ancient religions were spread through violence.  They thought that if they could kill anyone that was against their religion, not only would it get rid of the competition, but other "might makes right" type of people would convert.

[RCali]

It's not the only religion to do this, you know.  Read the old testament.  Many ancient religions were spread through violence.  They thought that if they could kill anyone that was against their religion, not only would it get rid of the competition, but other "might makes right" type of people would convert.

 

And what other religion or religious group today has such violent culture?

[dsayers]

And what other religion or religious group today has such violent culture?

All. Most notably statism. In a couple places on these forums, I've made the case that since religion transmits by way of violating the obligation to children for raising them to be capable of taking care of themselves (since religion is anti-rationality to the forming mind), all religions are the initiation of the use of force. If the problem is irrationality, naming one religion is just focusing on a symptom, which isn't very useful.

[Donnadogsoth]

All. Most notably statism. In a couple places on these forums, I've made the case that since religion transmits by way of violating the obligation to children for raising them to be capable of taking care of themselves (since religion is anti-rationality to the forming mind), all religions are the initiation of the use of force. If the problem is irrationality, naming one religion is just focusing on a symptom, which isn't very useful.

Roman Catholicism is dispatching suicide bombers to France?

[shirgall]

And what other religion or religious group today has such violent culture?

 

Check out the religious war in Sri Lanka.

[dsayers]

Roman Catholicism is dispatching suicide bombers to France?

Dispatching suicide bombers to France is the only way to initiate the use of force?

[AynRand]

Roman Catholicism is dispatching suicide bombers to France?

I don't think you have really thought about this because defending the evils of modern day Catholicism would be incredible tough. Care to talk  about African AIDS? Basic human rights for gay people? Priests raping boys? What they've said against Right to Die movement? Support for the state? Hell? Do you intend to defend the catholic church's actions?

 

While Catholics are not known to strap a bomb to their chest armed with an M16's they do support evil in many other facets of society.

[DCLugi]

Roman Catholicism is dispatching suicide bombers to France?

70% of the military is Christian.

[J. D. Stembal]

70% of the military is Christian.

 

In before the our side fights for virtue, philosophy, democracy and civilization justification.

[RCali]

All. Most notably statism. In a couple places on these forums, I've made the case that since religion transmits by way of violating the obligation to children for raising them to be capable of taking care of themselves (since religion is anti-rationality to the forming mind), all religions are the initiation of the use of force. If the problem is irrationality, naming one religion is just focusing on a symptom, which isn't very useful.

 

Can you make the case that indocrinating is initiating the use of force? That would be very interesting. And, of course, if I referred to the state as a religion, that would be the winner by many millions or billions in death toll. And it has impressed me quite a bit how pretty much everyone in this thread is trying to deflect the attention from Islam to everything else. Maybe you do not understand, but, in Europe, the Islam invasion is a pretty big deal. I'm sure you've read the news, it is an act of war. And besides that, you know what they do when they arrive here. They kill, they rape, they steal. Europe's greatest danger isn't Christianism, it isn't Judaism. It is Islam and it is the state. The same in the Americas. The churches of the jews and christians may still have some power, but, compared to the actions of Islam, they are irrelavant. If you don't know this, then you're very behind in knowledge of the muslims. If I am behind, please show me why, or anyone, should worry about something else, and not on the genocidal, murdering, slaving, thieving, hysterical, civilization destroying rapists that are the muslims.

[dsayers]

Can you make the case that indocrinating is initiating the use of force?

Having a child is the creation of a positive obligation to that child to protect and nurture them until such a time as they're able to do so for themselves. This entails many things, not the least of which is the primary wisdom of calling things by their proper names. Religiosity isn't just irrational, it is anti-rational when inflicted upon a developing mind. As this is a violation of the aforementioned obligation, it IS the initiation of the use of force.

 

it has impressed me quite a bit how pretty much everyone in this thread is trying to deflect the attention from Islam to everything else.

I won't speak for others, but my efforts have not been to redirect. My efforts have been to break tunnel vision. There are tons of people the world over bringing attention to Islam right now. You don't need me to say so. What most people are NOT pointing out is that Islam is a symptom and irrationality is the problem. They're not telling you that this fundamental breaking people up into teams as Mr. Stembal points out is how this sort of thing takes place to begin with. There's only one way to divide people: Those willing to initiate the use of force to accomplish their goals and those who will not.

 

A lot of the people trying to bring attention to Islam right now are doing so in the name of the State to justify further aggression. Not saying they're wrong. Just saying they're not on your team. People are so focused on Islam that they either don't realize or have lost sight of the fact that Statism is a religion that enslaves us all. Islam can't tax me, debase my currency, or enslave my grandchildren.

[RCali]

Having a child is the creation of a positive obligation to that child to protect and nurture them until such a time as they're able to do so for themselves. This entails many things, not the least of which is the primary wisdom of calling things by their proper names. Religiosity isn't just irrational, it is anti-rational when inflicted upon a developing mind. As this is a violation of the aforementioned obligation, it IS the initiation of the use of force.

 

 

That's just not correct. You are saying that people who share what they take for granted, and as absolute truth are initiating the use of force. That's absurd. By that logic, you are initiating the use of force whenever you speak of anything, right or wrong, according to whatever may be. Whether it is the best for someone else is irrelevant. You are not initiating the use of force until you violate the right to property of the next person (as you so much like to say). You are violating no rights when speaking of religion and you are not violating rights when you lie, and you aren't violating rights when you say something as absurd as saying the planet is flat. Just like when you honk your horn, which people have been speaking of in some other thread. It's very weird that you're having trouble realizing this, seeing as you constantly bring up property rights. And, to make it clear, I did refer to owning the body as property.

[dsayers]

RCali, that's the second time you've spoken as if I didn't specify the parent-child relationship. So let's start from the beginning. Do you accept that when a person has a child, they have voluntarily created a positive obligation to that child to care for and nurture it until such a time as it is able to do so for itself?

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't think you have really thought about this because defending the evils of modern day Catholicism would be incredible tough. Care to talk  about African AIDS? Basic human rights for gay people? Priests raping boys? What they've said against Right to Die movement? Support for the state? Hell? Do you intend to defend the catholic church's actions?

 

While Catholics are not known to strap a bomb to their chest armed with an M16's they do support evil in many other facets of society.

 

I'm not going to get in to an apology of the Church in this thread, but merely note that it is not Catholics committing acts of terrorism like the Moslems do, nor does Catholic doctrine encourage it.

[RCali]

RCali, that's the second time you've spoken as if I didn't specify the parent-child relationship. So let's start from the beginning. Do you accept that when a person has a child, they have voluntarily created a positive obligation to that child to care for and nurture it until such a time as it is able to do so for itself?

 

I acknowledge what you've said, and assumed it was so basic, it didn't have to be mentioned. Of course I agree with that.

[Donnadogsoth]

70% of the military is Christian.

 

And do they fight for Christ or for country?  The country itself appears committed to self-destruction, which begs the question of why its military exists at all and what all those 70% are doing about it.

[DCLugi]

And do they fight for Christ or for country?  The country itself appears committed to self-destruction, which begs the question of why its military exists at all and what all those 70% are doing about it.

My point was that they claim to follow Christ and yet kill. At some point they have to justify in their own minds that they are doing the will of god otherwise what's the point of being Christian?

[Donnadogsoth]

Christianity has the doctrine of the Just War, courtesy of St. Augustine.  There is no intrinsic incompatibility between being a Christian and killing in time of war, or even in time of peace as in the case of self-defense.

 

http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

[dsayers]

And do they fight for Christ or for country?

I don't think anybody needs proof of your bigotry, but you just got caught. In this post, you took something history has credited to a country and instead gave the credit to the dominant religion of that country. Here, when crediting something to the religion would damage your bigotry of infallibility, you try to differentiate country from it dominant religion.

 

I acknowledge what you've said, and assumed it was so basic, it didn't have to be mentioned. Of course I agree with that.

Do you also accept that the ability to call things by their proper names is paramount to survival? Think hemlock is Kool-Aid and you're going to have a bad day. If you don't universalize gravity, you could plummet to severe injury or death. That sort of thing.

[AynRand]

I'm not going to get in to an apology of the Church in this thread, but merely note that it is not Catholics committing acts of terrorism like the Moslems do, nor does Catholic doctrine encourage it.

Literally every example (with the exception of priests raping boys) I gave is Catholic Doctrine promoting evil. Like I'm honestly asking did you not know this?

 

These are all exact quotes stating the churches Doctrine on the issues. Again Obviously their is no support for priests raping boys, and for some reason I couldn't find the Church admitting to the existence of hell, but we all know they believe that.

 

"The Catholic Church believes that artificial contraception is sinful and immoral and may frustrate a divine plan to bring a new life into the world."

"The Church opposes same-sex unions based on Genesis 1:25–28"

"Catholicism regards life as sacred, and taking any innocent life is immoral and sinful. The Catholic Church uses same principles to condemn euthanasia as it does to condemn abortion."

"The root of all this evil is the apostasy from christianity, so marked in some countries, and the acceptance, or influence, of atheism Once given that there is no god, it immediately becomes unjust and impossible for anyone to exact obedience and submission from anyone else. If there is no God. there can be no master. The anarchist conclusion is therefore illogical."