Muzzie opens fire in Florida gay club...

[GRN ENVY]

Originally Posted by Mike Mercury

You seem to want to stay in the center, and appease both sides. Open your eyes WIDE !!!. In this specific... it's one party that is enabling these Muslim extremists.



Seriously; are you fearful of losing your circle of friends if you dare speak out on this? I hope not; I think I know you better than this.

I have friends on both sides of this. I DONT want a party to enable the extremists, but I also don't want my muslim friends persecuted for the actions of a few. Those few seem to be growing which is very scary

My analogy of the rope was eventually the rope isn't going to stretch and we are going to find us flying back to the center of a civil rights war

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Why?

What is preventing you from protecting yourself? Why do you see yourself as someone who needs protecting by "the system"?

I protect myself everyday. I carry everywhere I go (within the law). It would be nice so I wouldn't have to carry. But being as the world population grows, so does the chance of being a victim. I don't think it will be a world again where one doesn't have to worry.

[DAB]

next time you get a chance to talk to your muslim friends, ask them if the koran teaches what you've heard on the news. does it teach muslims to kill non-believers, to kill homosexuals? because that's what i've heard on the news.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by GRN ENVY

I protect myself everyday. I carry everywhere I go (within the law). It would be nice so I wouldn't have to carry. But being as the world population grows, so does the chance of being a victim. I don't think it will be a world again where one doesn't have to worry.

I'm curious then about your previous comment that was quoted.

I can't protect myself, I have to trust the system.

It sounds to me like you CAN protect yourself. It also sounds like you would be able to BETTER protect yourself if "the system" got the hell out of the way and allowed you to do so.

[Dan Dlabay]

As far as I am concerned what happened in Orlando should be considered as a act of war by ISSI and dam goverment should degree that a state of war exist between the United States and ISSI.

[vetteman9368]

Originally Posted by GRN ENVY

I have friends on both sides of this. I DONT want a party to enable the extremists, but I also don't want my muslim friends persecuted for the actions of a few. Those few seem to be growing which is very scary

My analogy of the rope was eventually the rope isn't going to stretch and we are going to find us flying back to the center of a civil rights war



I protect myself everyday. I carry everywhere I go (within the law). It would be nice so I wouldn't have to carry. But being as the world population grows, so does the chance of being a victim. I don't think it will be a world again where one doesn't have to worry.

Marcus,

The sooner we tackle this issue head on and get super tough on Islamic extremism, the sooner our country and your friends can breathe easier. If our government were doing its job, there would be no backlash against truly peaceful people of any religion. The longer our government plays PC appeasement, the more hatred, mistrust, fear, suspicion, etc are going to foment.

[GRN ENVY]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

I'm curious then about your previous comment that was quoted.



It sounds to me like you CAN protect yourself. It also sounds like you would be able to BETTER protect yourself if "the system" got the hell out of the way and allowed you to do so.

I can't legally carry in a nightclub, bar or casino (<---Sorry if that point was lost). Thus I don't want to break the law, so I have to trust the system in place. Even though as we discuss here. It has failed time and time again.

I can and WILL always be able to protect myself, as I have my self interest at heart. But why should I have to protect myself if we have all these "Great resources" (LEO, crime analysts, Investigators etc)

To your point, if they keep failing then get the hell away and let me survive the best way I know how.

[GRN ENVY]

Originally Posted by vetteman9368

Marcus,

The sooner we tackle this issue head on and get super tough on Islamic extremism, the sooner our country and your friends can breathe easier. If our government were doing its job, there would be no backlash against truly peaceful people of any religion. The longer our government plays PC appeasement, the more hatred, mistrust, fear, suspicion, etc are going to foment.

This I can understand and support.

I don't want it to be lost in translation that all muslims are bad, or any other, religion, race, orientation, etc. There are true evil and extremists in every group. Seek and remove those

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by vetteman9368

Marcus,

The sooner we tackle this issue head on and get super tough on Islamic extremism, the sooner our country and your friends can breathe easier. If our government were doing its job, there would be no backlash against truly peaceful people of any religion. The longer our government plays PC appeasement, the more hatred, mistrust, fear, suspicion, etc are going to foment.

This is an excellent post.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by vetteman9368

Marcus,

The sooner we tackle this issue head on and get super tough on Islamic extremism, the sooner our country and your friends can breathe easier. If our government were doing its job, there would be no backlash against truly peaceful people of any religion. The longer our government plays PC appeasement, the more hatred, mistrust, fear, suspicion, etc are going to foment.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

And zero adherence to the Constitution also.

Actually the Constitution gives Congress and the President total leeway on deciding who is allowed to immigrate to the USA and under what rules. The actual implementation of these laws and policies have been tested many times in court, often ending up in the Supreme Court. It's not just cut and dry that we have no say over who comes here.

For instance, currently Obama is ignoring established immigration law by not deporting immigrants here illegally, and instead has released over 80,000 incarcerated illegal immigrants back into the USA. I mean, he won't even deport convicted felon illegals. The excuse is that their home countries won't take them back, but they don't have a choice in this matter.

If a President Trump were to ask Congress to pass a law that would make immigration from Islamic countries hinge on absolute verification of that person's identity, travels, and associations he would be 100% in his Constitutional authority to do so. Also, he would have to do absolutely nothing about the illegal immigrants swarming over our southern border because existing law can be used to halt that. And if the current congress and POTUS doesn't pull a fast one and fast track amnesty before Jan. 20, 2017, he wouldn't have to change any laws to deport tens of millions of people here without permission for entry.

So the Constitutional argument is actually a very weak argument to make as it actually points out that the only bit of the Constitution being ignored is actually by our current POTUS because he's sworn to uphold the laws of the land, and he is absolutely flaunting that responsibility by essentially making his own laws (presidential orders that are in direct conflict with existing law, often law signed into existence by Democrat presidents.)

Currently the Justice Department is embroiled in a federal lawsuit because they lied repeatedly to a Federal judge about their actions vis-a-vis immigration. It's not going well for them either.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by Dan Dlabay

As far as I am concerned what happened in Orlando should be considered as a act of war by ISSI and dam goverment should degree that a state of war exist between the United States and ISSI.

yes.



But when our commander-in-chief sees them (those in the US) solely as a block-of-voters... he won't risk alienating them just for your protection.

What's more important??? It's obvious in his mind. And anyone with free thought and an unkontrolled mind can see this.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by vetteman9368

Marcus,

The sooner we tackle this issue head on and get super tough on Islamic extremism, the sooner our country and your friends can breathe easier. If our government were doing its job, there would be no backlash against truly peaceful people of any religion. The longer our government plays PC appeasement, the more hatred, mistrust, fear, suspicion, etc are going to foment.

You say this but this is what the Democratic party has been all about for decades now. They play one group against the other. Their entire party is made up of various "victim groups" and sometimes, as is the case in Orlando recently, these victim groups overlap. There is actually a hierarchy of victimology they employ to determine "who wins" when this happens. A short list goes like this:

(from most sacred to least sacred victim groups)

Muslims
LGBT
Hispanics
Blacks
Women

Now there are many sub-groups that sometimes fit in, for instance a brown-skinned person in general is afforded a victim slot. Doesn't matter if they come from a place that was never "victimized". And when Muslims victimize LGBT people, Muslims are given a pass due to their position on the (sometimes changing) victimology chart. If an Hispanic kills a black guy, it's just not a big deal. That's why suddenly George Zimmerman was turned into a "white Hispanic" because if he was just Hispanic, their narrative would have been harmed.

I know some of you will read this and think I'm nuts, but this is really how the Democrat party operates at their very core. It's why they fell all over themselves supporting Black Lives Matter, CAIR, Nation of Islam, F The Police, La Raza, and any number of "special interest groups" who stir things up.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

You say this but this is what the Democratic party has been all about for decades now. They play one group against the other. Their entire party is made up of various "victim groups" and sometimes, as is the case in Orlando recently, these victim groups overlap. There is actually a hierarchy of victimology they employ to determine "who wins" when this happens. A short list goes like this:

(from most sacred to least sacred victim groups)

Muslims
LGBT
Hispanics
Blacks
Women

Now there are many sub-groups that sometimes fit in, for instance a brown-skinned person in general is afforded a victim slot. Doesn't matter if they come from a place that was never "victimized". And when Muslims victimize LGBT people, Muslims are given a pass due to their position on the (sometimes changing) victimology chart. If an Hispanic kills a black guy, it's just not a big deal. That's why suddenly George Zimmerman was turned into a "white Hispanic" because if he was just Hispanic, their narrative would have been harmed.

I know some of you will read this and think I'm nuts, but this is really how the Democrat party operates at their very core. It's why they fell all over themselves supporting Black Lives Matter, CAIR, Nation of Islam, F The Police, La Raza, and any number of "special interest groups" who stir things up.

I don't think you're nuts. You described how the Democrat party works.

[Mike Mercury]

here ya go:

Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. shut down an investigation into the mosque Orlando killer Omar Mir Siddique Mateen attended because it “unfairly singled out Muslims.”

The Fort Pierce Islamic Center, where Mateen worshipped several times a week, was under investigation by both the FBI and DHS as early as 2011 for ties to a worldwide Islamic movement known as Tablighi Jamaal which was linked to several terrorist organizations.

But the investigation was shut down under pressure from the State Dept. and DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office out of fear of offending Muslims, according to recently retired DHS agent Philip Haney.

“The FBI had opened cases twice on him, and yet they found no evidence to charge him; it means they didn’t go through the same basic, analytical process that I went through over a three- or four-hour period in which I was able to link the mosque to my previous cases,” he told WND on Sunday.

did any of you think I was crazy when stating that this block-of-voters was deemed more important than citizens safety?

It's all there to see, taking place over the past 7 years or so. Yet, many in the gay community are soooo entrenched in this 21st century Democrat party... that they will ignore these things.

Look away; close your eyes. Don't allow facts to sway your belief in us.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Mike Mercury

did any of you think I was crazy when stating that this block-of-voters was deemed more important than citizens safety?

It's all there to see, taking place over the past 7 years or so. Yet, many in the gay community are soooo entrenched in this 21st century Democrat party... that they will ignore these things.

Look away; close your eyes. Don't allow facts to sway your belief in us.

And if anyone is confused why the FBI and DHS is so careful about parsing this guy's motives, keep in mind that he worked for the DHS under their G4S program, providing security for federal buildings and agencies. Oh, and that the FBI and DHS was warned at least three days prior to the attack. They were actually warned of a pending attack in East coast of Florida.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

You say this but this is what the Democratic party has been all about for decades now. They play one group against the other. Their entire party is made up of various "victim groups"

Remember that old saying... "history repeats itself" ?

Early in WWII, Hitler asked Himmler for advice on how to take firm control over a country that the Nazis had just overtaken; due to resistance cells within the newly aquired territory.

Himler said:
"Divide the countries different ethnic, religious, and political factions up into as many parts and splinter groups as possible. Any nation that fights amongst themselves cannot protect it's own borders".

This is exactly what the 21st century democrat party is trying to do to us.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by GRN ENVY

I can't legally carry in a nightclub, bar or casino (<---Sorry if that point was lost). Thus I don't want to break the law, so I have to trust the system in place. Even though as we discuss here. It has failed time and time again.

I can and WILL always be able to protect myself, as I have my self interest at heart. But why should I have to protect myself if we have all these "Great resources" (LEO, crime analysts, Investigators etc)

To your point, if they keep failing then get the hell away and let me survive the best way I know how.

Gotcha. When you said "can't" I read something entirely different.

All of those "great resources" have proven themselves to be ineffective and each time it happens, idealists use it as a way to try to take even more of our ability to defend ourselves.

[GRN ENVY]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Gotcha. When you said "can't" I read something entirely different.

All of those "great resources" have proven themselves to be ineffective and each time it happens, idealists use it as a way to try to take even more of our ability to defend ourselves.

I could see how that would have a different meaning.

The resources are extremely ineffective. The terrorist on the FBI watch list twice. Full me once shame on you, full me twice shame on me.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by GRN ENVY

I could see how that would have a different meaning.

The resources are extremely ineffective. The terrorist on the FBI watch list twice. Full me once shame on you, full me twice shame on me.

It's almost as if they look for any reason to clear him, instead of leaning on the side of common sense. I mean, they surely had enough to make it very hard for him to buy weapons legally.

And even if he couldn't have bought the weapons he used, with the type of associations he had, it would not have been a problem to get an AR-15 and a pistol or whatever it was he used.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by GRN ENVY

I could see how that would have a different meaning.

The resources are extremely ineffective. The terrorist on the FBI watch list twice. Full me once shame on you, full me twice shame on me.

We have /had very effective tools to reduce mass shooting and terror attacks. We just refuse to accept using them.