Well then they aren't so radical in the way of Islam.
If baal's followers want to burn down baal's temples and blame it on me, I'll take it.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well then they aren't so radical in the way of Islam.
If baal's followers want to burn down baal's temples and blame it on me, I'll take it.
Since you say that I have given him an F,when I never said that,I'll go with YOUR truth and say an F It Is.
And we have been giving it away since 9/11 and before. Instead of searching potential Islamists at airports we've been giving grandpa a hard time. The left is unhinged and accusing trump of doing the very things they've been doing for decades.
Yeah, well... the market gets nervous when a goat herder in Jordan breaks wind, so that doesn't worry me much....
No wonder you live in fantasy land...
A. My point is valid
B. Never said this was about Syrian refugees
C. ASKED if you have signed up to receive Syrian Refugees....
For one who writes you sure missed what was actually said!
Exactly what trump is proposing. Constructing safe zones for people. I'm guessing trump can negotiate with Putin for doing just that. Say maybe easing some sanctions in return for sharing the burden?
I recommend that everyone take the time to read the text of the EO.
Full text of Trump's executive order on 7-nation ban, refugee suspension - CNNPolitics.com
Full text of Trump's executive order on 7-nation ban, refugee suspension - CNNPolitics.com
S
Susanna
Guest
Correct.
You never specifically said "F"; I was just summarizing your general position, since "F" in this case is all metaphorical anyway.
But thanks for clearing it up.
This seems like a huge NON ISSUE.
1. There is only a 90 day ban on their ability to travel here from Syria.
2. Trump's executive order had a clause, and a method, to BYPASS the order on a case-by-case basis.
3. If a few people are inconvenienced as we attempt to review and update immigration policies, to keep our citizens safer, then THAT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE... INCLUDING FUTURE IMMIGRANTS.
Correct.
You never specifically said "F"; I was just summarizing your general position, since "F" in this case is all metaphorical anyway.
But thanks for clearing it up.
Okay,I will say that I would have to give him an "F"on that last order he gave,although I Do believe his aim was to make America safe,I just disagree with breaking the law,some of those people were already vetted.
Straw man arguments
Almost every argument against this executive order is a straw man argument.
People simply read things into it, or make assumptions, which aren't there.
1. It is not breaking the law for the President to issue an executive order, which his office has the authority to do... especially if the order is completely constitutional.
Even most of the President's critics have agreed this order is constitutional.
Keep in mind, constitutional rights DO NOT EVEN BELONG TO NON CITIZENS ANYWAY.
The constitution of the U.S. applies only to citizens of the U.S.
2. This executive order was only temporary in nature... it's a moratorium while security issues are reexamined.
3. This order included the ability for people to BY PASS IT COMPLETELY on a case by case basis.
4. Regarding people already vetted:
A. This executive order was enacted in order to set up NEW vetting processes, because the OLD ONES WEREN'T ALWAYS DOING THE JOB.
B. There is an ability for people to bypass the order on a case by case basis, if they feel they were already vetted appropriately.
Last edited:
I don't think some of those people being vetted already can be taken out of the argument.
True,the president can make an executive order but If his executive order has to do with vetting,how does talking about vetting make this a strawman argument.
Answer=no It does not.
True,the president can make an executive order but If his executive order has to do with vetting,how does talking about vetting make this a strawman argument.
Answer=no It does not.
Straw Man Arguments -
Logic & Propositions
Progression of what just happened:
A. You made a proposition.
B. I rebutted by showing it wasn't valid, and also that it was a straw man argument.
C. You attempted to answer my rebuttal... by sidestepping your own proposition (your point) and creating ANOTHER STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.
When an argument isn't going well, we don't actually WIN by changing the argument.
------------------------------------------------------
Now: we'll analyze the above progression, and point out the problems in point C.
1. You originally made the proposition:
Trump's executive order broke the law
You supported this proposition with this premise:
Some people who could not enter the U.S. were "already vetted."
That was your argument as YOU stated it.
Trump broke the law, BY stopping some people that were already vetted.
We see this in your original statement below:
I just disagree with breaking the law,
some of those people were already vetted.
2. I rebutted your proposition by clearly showing Trump's executive order did NOT break the law.
THIS REBUTTED YOUR ENTIRE PROPOSITION.
Your proposition was that Trump's order BROKE THE LAW.
Your statement that some people were "already vetted" was nothing but a PREMISE which tried to SUPPORT your proposition.. it was never your proposition.
Your "vetting" statement was NOT your proposition.
Your "vetting" statement, as YOU positioned it, was merely a premise to SUPPORT your proposition.
Your proposition, your WHOLE POINT, as YOU STATED IT, was that Trump broke the law.
Here is my previous argument, proving Trump did NOT break any laws, thus REBUTTING YOUR PROPOSITION.
3. After your proposition was rebutted (Trump broke the law), you claimed it was NOT REBUTTED, by actually CHANGING YOUR PROPOSITION to something else!
You now claim your proposition was the vetting issue.
Your proposition was NOT the vetting issue.
Your proposition as YOU positioned it, and YOU claimed it, was that "trump broke the law."
4. Now, your new straw man... completely changing the subject:
A. You shift the entire argument from "trump breaking the law", all the way to "vetting", and then further still to just "talking about vetting."
B. You THEN say we were MERELY "talking about vetting", and therefore anything I said previously about a straw man is invalid.
You created a NEW STRAW MAN by COMPLETELY CHANGING YOUR PROPOSITION to something completely ridiculous:
that "talking about vetting" is rational and is not a straw man.
The concept of "talking about vetting" was never a proposition in the first place.
Whether or not it's ok to "talk about vetting" was never brought up at all.
It was never brought up as a proposition, as a premise, as any kind of evidence, and it was never rebutted.
This is just a COMPLETELY ABSURD DEFLECTION.
We were NEVER DEBATING whether or not it was ok to "talk about vetting."
YOU JUST COMPLETELY CHANGED THE ENTIRE SUBJECT... CREATING A BRAND NEW STRAW MAN!
You JUST CHANGED THE SUBJECT OF THE ARGUMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ARGUMENT...
and PRETENDED THAT YOU DIDN'T!
seed_time_harvest,
You win.
If you want to completely change the subject whenever something isn't going well,
and then still pretend your talking about the same thing...
go ahead.
You win.
I can't do this.
This just makes me really tired.
Last edited:
Sirk fails to see how his projections are only reflections of his own self esteem. The following article gives a good analysis of people like him:
8 signs of a modern-day Pharisee - Frank Viola
1) Pharisees spend more time focusing on what they hate rather than on what they love.
2) Pharisees magnify the sins of others while minimizing — or even ignoring — their own.
7) Pharisees impute evil motives to the hearts of others (but are clueless that they’re merely revealing what’s in their own).
All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory. But at least some of us try to get back on topic whereas others persist in attacking and criticizing.
OK. Back on topic:
In response to Trump's action, the courts have already issued a temporary injunction. Significantly, it has been reported that the ACLU has had a massive increase in their membership as a result of Trump's action and that it has reported a whopping $24 million gain in donations! On top of that, world wide opposition to Trump has been loud and demonstrative. British folks, for example, have issued a massive petition calling for him to be denied an official state visit to that country:
Trump executive order: Million sign petition to stop UK visit
More than 1.3 million people have signed a petition urging the government to call off President Donald Trump's state visit to the UK, amid a row over his recent immigration measures.
Downing Street, however, said Theresa May was looking forward to the visit.
Boris Johnson is addressing MPs amid confusion over whether UK dual nationals of seven banned Muslim-majority countries are affected.
Mr Trump's executive order on immigration has caused anger worldwide.
US airports have seen chaotic scenes as travellers were detained on arrival.
Protests in response to Mr Trump's order are expected to take place after 18:00 outside Downing Street and in other UK cities.
Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the row.
But the US embassy in London later issued a statement, since taken down from its website, which told any citizens of the seven countries in question and also those holding dual nationality not to apply for a visa for the time being.
The petition is now the second-most popular on the government's website, which was set up in July 2015.
It states: "Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen."
Mrs May is in Cardiff today for ministerial talksPM Theresa May announced the state visit when she visited Washington to meet President Trump last week.
Downing Street said on Monday that Mrs May "extended an invitation on behalf of the Queen - and she was very happy to do so.
"The USA is one of this country's closest allies, and we look forward to hosting the president later this year."
Mrs May faced criticism after she hesitated to condemn Mr Trump's immigration restrictions when asked about them on Friday.
The government has since made clear that it disagrees with the measures.
Jeremy Corbyn has urged the PM to postpone the visit:
"Donald Trump should not be welcomed to Britain while he abuses our shared values with his shameful Muslim ban and attacks on refugees' and women's rights," the Labour leader said.
Media caption British journalist Ali Hamedani: US interrogation "like being arrested in Iran"
State visits are grand occasions requiring an invitation from the Queen, and are distinct from regular visits by heads of state. The Queen usually receives one or two heads of state a year.
Number 10 said a "committee for state visits" had recommended the president be invited to the UK.
On Friday Mr Trump signed an executive order halting the US refugee programme for 120 days, indefinitely banning all Syrian refugees and suspending the entry of all nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries.
Media caption Ed Miliband told BBC Radio 4's World at One that the travel ban handed IS a "tool" for radicalisation
On Saturday afternoon the petition had just 60 signatures but reached the 100,000 needed to be considered for debate by Parliament just after midday on Sunday.
When it passed the million mark, it was found that about 30,000 came from outside the UK.
It is now second only to last year's petition signed by more than four million people calling for a fresh referendum on whether to leave the European Union.
A 2015 campaign seeking to ban Mr Trump, then just a presidential candidate, from entering the UK gained more than 500,000 signatures.
Former Conservative Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind told the BBC that it would be unwise to conduct international relations on the basis of how many people had signed a petition.
Describing Mr Trump's immigration policy as "pretty dumb", he said the UK was in a special position to "in a very polite but firm and robust way make our representations and that to a significant degree is what Theresa May has been doing."
The UKIP leader Paul Nuttall told the BBC that protests against Trump's UK visit were "short sighted" and that Britain must protect its special relationship with the US.
But other opposition politicians did not hesitate to criticise the government for inviting Mr Trump.
Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg said the invitation was "far too premature":
"It is difficult to exaggerate how much damage Theresa May's naivety in rushing to sidle next to Donald Trump is doing to her reputation in European capitals," the former deputy prime minister said.
Green Party joint leader Caroline Lucas said she felt "ashamed" of the way Mrs May had handled the situation:
"What really worries me is that she is now so worried about being friendless after Brexit, that essentially she will accept any kind of relationship with any kind of bigot around the world,"
Shadow Attorney-General Shami Chakrabarti said the government's position "sounds like appeasement".
Alex Salmond, the SNP's foreign affairs spokesman, said he thought the state visit was "a very bad idea".
And Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the visit should not happen while the executive order was in place.
All this can lead to a big loss of allies in foreign affairs. If the USA were to engage in yet another of its incessant but profitable foreign wars, no other country will ally itself with Trump's forces and it will be a war that cannot be won. Trump better think over his actions and consider all reactions whether foreign or domestic.
In response to Trump's action, the courts have already issued a temporary injunction. Significantly, it has been reported that the ACLU has had a massive increase in their membership as a result of Trump's action and that it has reported a whopping $24 million gain in donations! On top of that, world wide opposition to Trump has been loud and demonstrative. British folks, for example, have issued a massive petition calling for him to be denied an official state visit to that country:
Trump executive order: Million sign petition to stop UK visit
More than 1.3 million people have signed a petition urging the government to call off President Donald Trump's state visit to the UK, amid a row over his recent immigration measures.
Downing Street, however, said Theresa May was looking forward to the visit.
Boris Johnson is addressing MPs amid confusion over whether UK dual nationals of seven banned Muslim-majority countries are affected.
Mr Trump's executive order on immigration has caused anger worldwide.
US airports have seen chaotic scenes as travellers were detained on arrival.
Protests in response to Mr Trump's order are expected to take place after 18:00 outside Downing Street and in other UK cities.
Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the row.
- LIVE: UK reaction to Trump travel ban
- What is a state visit?
- Thousands to protest against Trump ban
- Global concern grows
But the US embassy in London later issued a statement, since taken down from its website, which told any citizens of the seven countries in question and also those holding dual nationality not to apply for a visa for the time being.
The petition is now the second-most popular on the government's website, which was set up in July 2015.
It states: "Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen."
Mrs May is in Cardiff today for ministerial talksPM Theresa May announced the state visit when she visited Washington to meet President Trump last week.
Downing Street said on Monday that Mrs May "extended an invitation on behalf of the Queen - and she was very happy to do so.
"The USA is one of this country's closest allies, and we look forward to hosting the president later this year."
Mrs May faced criticism after she hesitated to condemn Mr Trump's immigration restrictions when asked about them on Friday.
The government has since made clear that it disagrees with the measures.
Jeremy Corbyn has urged the PM to postpone the visit:
"Donald Trump should not be welcomed to Britain while he abuses our shared values with his shameful Muslim ban and attacks on refugees' and women's rights," the Labour leader said.
- US ban 'does not affect UK dual nationals'
- US entry ban victims tell their stories
- Farah 'relieved' after US travel change
Media caption British journalist Ali Hamedani: US interrogation "like being arrested in Iran"
State visits are grand occasions requiring an invitation from the Queen, and are distinct from regular visits by heads of state. The Queen usually receives one or two heads of state a year.
Number 10 said a "committee for state visits" had recommended the president be invited to the UK.
On Friday Mr Trump signed an executive order halting the US refugee programme for 120 days, indefinitely banning all Syrian refugees and suspending the entry of all nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries.
Media caption Ed Miliband told BBC Radio 4's World at One that the travel ban handed IS a "tool" for radicalisation
On Saturday afternoon the petition had just 60 signatures but reached the 100,000 needed to be considered for debate by Parliament just after midday on Sunday.
When it passed the million mark, it was found that about 30,000 came from outside the UK.
It is now second only to last year's petition signed by more than four million people calling for a fresh referendum on whether to leave the European Union.
A 2015 campaign seeking to ban Mr Trump, then just a presidential candidate, from entering the UK gained more than 500,000 signatures.
- Trump border policy: Key points
- What has Trump done in his first week?
- Trump tracker: Can the president deliver?
Former Conservative Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind told the BBC that it would be unwise to conduct international relations on the basis of how many people had signed a petition.
Describing Mr Trump's immigration policy as "pretty dumb", he said the UK was in a special position to "in a very polite but firm and robust way make our representations and that to a significant degree is what Theresa May has been doing."
The UKIP leader Paul Nuttall told the BBC that protests against Trump's UK visit were "short sighted" and that Britain must protect its special relationship with the US.
But other opposition politicians did not hesitate to criticise the government for inviting Mr Trump.
Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg said the invitation was "far too premature":
"It is difficult to exaggerate how much damage Theresa May's naivety in rushing to sidle next to Donald Trump is doing to her reputation in European capitals," the former deputy prime minister said.
Green Party joint leader Caroline Lucas said she felt "ashamed" of the way Mrs May had handled the situation:
"What really worries me is that she is now so worried about being friendless after Brexit, that essentially she will accept any kind of relationship with any kind of bigot around the world,"
Shadow Attorney-General Shami Chakrabarti said the government's position "sounds like appeasement".
Alex Salmond, the SNP's foreign affairs spokesman, said he thought the state visit was "a very bad idea".
And Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the visit should not happen while the executive order was in place.
All this can lead to a big loss of allies in foreign affairs. If the USA were to engage in yet another of its incessant but profitable foreign wars, no other country will ally itself with Trump's forces and it will be a war that cannot be won. Trump better think over his actions and consider all reactions whether foreign or domestic.