War Hawk

Nazi chainsaws intensify

#RollAlpha2016

Let's not forget that inspect element exists.

Boy, this thread took a strange turn.

You're more likely a narcissist than a psychopath.

I can't wait until the establishment decides to run a brokered convention. I can't wait until the globalist hyenas witness a wrath unseen for nearly a century.

You initially said, "At the end of the day, the constitution is a document, and it is up to us uphold it," but later said, "You realize it's just a piece of paper, right?" Those that use the phrase "just a piece of paper," when addressing the US Constitution, typically imply contempt for the document and what it stands for. I was merely pointing out a contradiction in your argument. If you want to argue semantics further, I'll provide you the definitions and synonyms of the words "paper" and "document." I'm not the one responding to a civil debate with one-liner rebukes. --- Also, what...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Oh, now it's just a piece of paper? I'm going to provide you with one of your earlier statements below: --- Yes, but the current laws don't state the time frame in which the deportation process must occur. It will likely happen gradually and humanely. If anything, the above statement removes your credibility. You made several of Trump's platforms constitutional issues when they weren't, and I addressed that. Let me guess, you're now going to resort to personal attacks?

You try to err on the side of controversy. What does the Constitution say about either or those issues? It certainly doesn't protect foreign citizens abroad, and while the 14th Amendment protects the children of illegal immigrants, I'm not aware of an amendment that protects illegal immigrants from deportation. I'd like to point out that legal Mexican immigrants and illegal Mexican immigrants largely fall into the same ethnic category. So, on the subject of deportation, it isn't a case of ethnic persecution, it's a case of enforcing our current laws. Furthermore, the proposed (temporary) ban of Muslim immigrants, and/or visitors, may be religious persecution in one's eyes, but at the end of the day, it's not a constitutional issue. The parties are somewhat evenly split. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Populism.

Supplementing your questions with the above comments wasn't necessary. To quote the First Amendment of the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I don't know whether your first question referred to persecution at the hands of the US Government or persecution at the hands of a collective population of like-minded individuals, but if you were referring to the former: No, our elected officials would not act against the word of the current US Constitution under oath. If you were referring to the latter, "a collective population of like-minded individuals," one can not say how the more open-minded population would react. If they were a majority of the US population, they would likely be more vocal about their opposition to religious persecution; if they were a minority of the US population, they would be less vocal. It's not rocket science. The US Government has checks and balances. Again, it's not rocket science. The United States would be met with hostility by the international community if "Literally-Hitler" took office. If our new leader's rhetoric is extreme enough, it would provoke economic sanctions and isolation coordinated by many - allies and enemies alike. It's a good thing we have Mr. Trump to vote for rather than Mrs. Hillary "Literally-Hitler" Clinton. How far could who go with what? If you're talking about presidential policy, one president was nearly impeached for getting his dick sucked. Yes it is. Trump 2016.

I hope you realize how silly that statement is - especially when you're arguing that Islam is a religion of peace.

o/ Pantheon o/ Rose

You'd be correct in that Shaprio has his biases, but most of the points that he brings up aren't any less valid. For example, a Muslim may hold extremist views while still remaining "peaceful." This would be similar to the Westboro Baptist Chruch - one of the most hateful organizations in the United States, yet they refrain from violence. Furthermore, Shapiro brings up an interesting theory that highlights a potential connection between the peaceful and the violent Muslim communities. This connection being that the peaceful community, sharing the same extremist views as their violent counterparts, enables violence perpetrated by certain Islamic groups because of their (peaceful) lack of rejection and, in some cases, because of their encouragement.

I feel that the following video addresses your points better than I can.

How do you suppose we quell extremism peddled at an increasing rate? The only ways to combat Islamic extremism (that I see) are open rejection of the Islamic faith or revision coordinated by peaceful Muslims, because modern Islamic extremism is a perversion of an archaic faith that has, time and time again, dismissed revision. It is the peaceful Muslim's responsibility to reject extremism, to educate their offspring, and to revise Islam. But the first step must be the acknowledgement that their religion can encourage violence as a means of communication. I understand that, under different circumstances, Christians or Jews would be in the same place that Muslims are today - however, that place is already here. Whether with rejection or revision, Islamic extremism must be stopped by its own peaceful followers.

Are Buddhists murdering on the same, systematic scale as Muslims? Should I provide you with another two months - yes, another two whole months of terror attacks? We (the West) condemn the ideology of National Socialism, and we pin it as a root cause of World War II. What's wrong with identifying the ideology of Islam as a root cause of modern terrorism? To address your second point: If we bring peace, we get peace? Fair point - I forgot about the time those hijackers brought peace to the World Trade Center.

Terror attacks committed in the name of Islam in December 2015: Terror attacks committed in the name of Islam in January 2016: The Quran might contain some peaceful statements, but one needs to question how Islamic extremists are able to perpetuate violence and hostility with the "religion of peace." The frequency of terror attacks is increasing, and the solution certainly isn't to bury our heads in the sand and claim, "Islam has nothing to do with this body count."