• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Black Church Burned -Vote Trump written on it

RJKarl said:
I never said that, but you've been intentionally misrepresenting what I have said for decades. It's sad but is, was and seems like will always be you MO.

The only way to ensure zero acts of terrorism is to end all immigration from those areas and ban visit, business and student exchanges from Muslims nations and by all Muslims. That's the only way to get to zero.

In fact to get to zero, you'd have to also exile all US citizen Muslims, green card Muslims and all Muslim countries' diplomatic corps. The combination of these two are the only way to get to zero.
Click to expand...

You really should move past your self imposed pity party. You are either able to express yourself clearly or you aren't. And right now you are doing a really shitty job of expressing yourself clearly.

Should we take on any and all immigrant populations? If so, why?
 
What I said was very clear. It just was more logical than your position which you have always hated.

Show we take in known members of ISIS or al qeada? No.

Should we ban all Muslims? No.

Should we ban all Somalis? No.

To ban all from any group or nation is antithetical to the principles of our nation. To ban all means, we'd have to ban victims of the bad people as well.

Who would you ban?
 
RJKarl said:
What I said was very clear. It just was more logical than your position which you have always hated.

Show we take in known members of ISIS or al qeada? No.

Should we ban all Muslims? No.

Should we ban all Somalis? No.

To ban all from any group or nation is antithetical to the principles of our nation. To ban all means, we'd have to ban victims of the bad people as well.

Who would you ban?
Click to expand...

To ban all from any group or nation is antithetical? You've already said we should not take anyone from al qeada or ISIS. Those are groups. Why aren't we admitting anyone from those groups?

How about violent criminals? I presume they are off your list. Can we agree on no violent criminals - murderers, rapists, wife beaters, child abusers? We good there?
 
If we know they are violent criminals (unless they were Cuban), they don't get in anyway. That's a red herring.

You are dancing around the issue.
 
So, we can't take anyone from Sudan. Hmmmmm...

What other countries can't we take anyone from?
 
Answer my question...you demanded I answer yours. Do you want to ban all people from certain countries? If, as you say, you want to keep out criminals and there is no way to know if they are criminals, according to you, what would you do? would you ban everyone?
 
Gotta love a debate where I am repeatedly told to answer questions before you will speak. I've engaged in that game multiple times. To date you have not done so. But sure, since it is the only way you'll even dip your toe in the water - no, I don't think there is a per se ban on immigrants from any country.

So back to criminals? What do we do with countries like Sudan? What steps do we take to confirm someone isn't a criminal? I presume if a person from Chile has to produce a record we don't merely throw up our hands and just let in anyone from the Sudan. What steps should we take to confirm they are not a criminal?

And while we are on the topic, what about illegal immigration? I'm not talking about Mexico. There are a host of countries that won't even allow us to deport back to their countries individuals who come here illegally and then commit crimes. What should our policy on immigration be generally towards these countries?
 
I've answered your questions. you won't answer mine.

Here's one I'll answer about Mexico, no wall! The only sensible solution to the undocumented is to provide a pathway to permanent status for those who have lived here for years or were brought here as kids and have only committed the crime of crossing the border or over-staying their visas.

As to criminals who are convicted here. Those who don't live in areas with lots of such people, the knee jerk reaction is to send them back. The reality is we should the really bad ones in our prisons until they are old. La Eme and MS 13 loves when we send back their soldiers. Many get out of Salvadoran or Mexican prisons nearly immediately and are training countrymen to enter our country more effectively. If we keep them for 20, 30 50 years, they become has beens and don't have any power. If we have control of them in our prisons, they are less dangerous.

now, you answer, first what are your solutions:

1. How or do we take people from Sudan, etc.

2. What about Mexico? the 12M here illegally?
 
RJKarl said:
Answer my question...you demanded I answer yours. Do you want to ban all people from certain countries? If, as you say, you want to keep out criminals and there is no way to know if they are criminals, according to you, what would you do? would you ban everyone?
Click to expand...

I do.
 
RJKarl said:
I've answered your questions. you won't answer mine.

Here's one I'll answer about Mexico, no wall! The only sensible solution to the undocumented is to provide a pathway to permanent status for those who have lived here for years or were brought here as kids and have only committed the crime of crossing the border or over-staying their visas.

As to criminals who are convicted here. Those who don't live in areas with lots of such people, the knee jerk reaction is to send them back. The reality is we should the really bad ones in our prisons until they are old. La Eme and MS 13 loves when we send back their soldiers. Many get out of Salvadoran or Mexican prisons nearly immediately and are training countrymen to enter our country more effectively. If we keep them for 20, 30 50 years, they become has beens and don't have any power. If we have control of them in our prisons, they are less dangerous.

now, you answer, first what are your solutions:

1. How or do we take people from Sudan, etc.

2. What about Mexico? the 12M here illegally?
Click to expand...

You once again prove yourself to be completely worthless in any sort of discussion. No one ever asked about Mexico. In fact, it was clear the question was not about Mexico as Mexico does accept deported immigrants.

So far as I can tell your stance appears to be you have no idea how to come up with a way to confirm whether immigrants from places like the Sudan are criminals and that we should hold immigrants from places like Japan to higher screening standards by default. (And you obviously have no idea what screening steps we do take for people from these countries - so you can't speak in any intelligent fashion as to how they might be improved). Never mind you have zero regard for horrific societal practices in countries like the Sudan that clearly suggest our practices should be more, not less, stringent. For instance, 79% of all women in the Sudan think it is acceptable for their husbands to beat them. You'd rightfully find that repugnant if this was some subset of citizens, but in an immigrant group it is somehow perfectly ok? Why?
 
DeacMan said:
You once again prove yourself to be completely worthless in any sort of discussion. No one ever asked about Mexico. In fact, it was clear the question was not about Mexico as Mexico does accept deported immigrants.

So far as I can tell your stance appears to be you have no idea how to come up with a way to confirm whether immigrants from places like the Sudan are criminals and that we should hold immigrants from places like Japan to higher screening standards by default. Never mind you have zero regard for horrific societal practices in countries like the Sudan that clearly suggest our practices should be more, not less, stringent. For instance, 79% of all women in the Sudan think it is acceptable for their husbands to beat them. You'd rightfully find that repugnant if this was some subset of citizens, but in an immigrant group it is somehow perfectly ok? Why?
Click to expand...

The red part is a typical DeacMan abject lie. I have never said nor would I ever say anything like that.

But what could I expect from a person who told me to "fuck off" when I congratulated him on his new child, applauded what he had done and wished him and his family only the best.
 
RJKarl said:
The red part is a typical DeacMan abject lie. I have never said nor would I ever say anything like that.

But what could I expect from a person who told me to "fuck off" when I congratulated him on his new child, applauded what he had done and wished him and his family only the best.
Click to expand...

Gotta love your ongoing victim complex. Funny how I'm not responding in kind. You must be one heck of an upstanding human being.

79% of women from the Sudan say it is acceptable for a husband to beat his wife. This is per the United Nations. At least 70% of women in that country experience one of the following crimes at the hands of men - physical abuse, sexual assault, forced marriage and/or underage marriage. This is per the Ministry of Gender in the South Sudan.

98% of women from Somalia have had their genitals mutilated. 97% of women from Sudan have endured the same thing. This is per Unicef.

I'm sure you'll bat (normally without any support) these types of statistics aside and proclaim refugee communities from these countries do not present any unique challenges or risks.
 
You still won't answer the question. Do you want all people or just the men from Sudan and Somalia banned from entry into the US?

Why won't you answer?

Not at all a victim. I was simply showing who you have been.
 
RJKarl said:
You still won't answer the question. Do you want all people or just the men from Sudan and Somalia banned from entry into the US?

Why won't you answer?

Not at all a victim. I was simply showing who you have been.
Click to expand...

So LOL.

See above for your answer. It was provided a few posts ago. All you need to do is read. Per se, no. No ban.

You going to engage on these cultural norms or not, RJ? Or are you the ultimate in tolerance. Tolerance of wife beating, rape, spousal abuse, terrorism. How about gays from Somalia, RJ? Should we go there next? How Somali gays are treated by the general public. Should we go to the Sudan? How about Syria? I'm sure those refugees all will be readily assimilated, without bigotry and not reflect the norms of their home cultures.


Awesome stuff, RJ.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top