I see them much more as progressives than Muslims, other than being anti-Semitic.One Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are too many, we don't need any more.
I see them much more as progressives than Muslims, other than being anti-Semitic.One Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are too many, we don't need any more.
As of now they go hand in hand, maybe someday someone of Muslim faith who's a conservative will run?I see them much more as progressives than Muslims, other than being anti-Semitic.
From a sample size of two, you extrapolate that Muslims are progressive? Are the resident Muslims on INGO progressive?As of now they go hand in hand, maybe someday someone of Muslim faith who's a conservative will run?
Muslims under cover. Omar is a straight up MuslimI see them much more as progressives than Muslims, other than being anti-Semitic.
What is an under cover Muslim?Muslims under cover. Omar is a straight up Muslim
They both despise Christianity. Enemy of my enemies sort of thing?What is an under cover Muslim?
How does Islam intersect with progressivism any more than Christianity?
Omar is a straight up idiot. She represents Minneapolis and its burbs. She was elected because she was a progressive, replacing Ellison, another progressive. They may have virtue voted for her because she was Muslim, but she was not elected because her district is majority Muslim.
What is an under cover Muslim?
How does Islam intersect with progressivism any more than Christianity?
Omar is a straight up idiot. She represents Minneapolis and its burbs. She was elected because she was a progressive, replacing Ellison, another progressive. They may have virtue voted for her because she was Muslim, but she was not elected because her district is majority Muslim.
As to you 1st sentence.What is an under cover Muslim?
How does Islam intersect with progressivism any more than Christianity?
Omar is a straight up idiot. She represents Minneapolis and its burbs. She was elected because she was a progressive, replacing Ellison, another progressive. They may have virtue voted for her because she was Muslim, but she was not elected because her district is majority Muslim.
I think everyone has the right, but the Constitution is only there to protect the citizens of the US's rights. Well it's supposed to. You want the protection covered by the Constitution, pledge allegiance to this great country and follow the laws so you don't lose your rights.Are Constitutional rights for citizens only?
As to you 1st sentence.
Obama.
Actually it's 3/3 in Congress so 100% lol. I wouldn't have any problem voting for a conservative Muslim, within the military and in academia I have a number of friends that are Muslim and have actually been to their homes and socialized, didn't think anything of it. The most religious prejudice you usually see around here is from the resident atheists.From a sample size of two, you extrapolate that Muslims are progressive? Are the resident Muslims on INGO progressive?
What chance would a conservative Muslim have of winning in most areas? I am guessing a lot on here would never vote for one, no matter how conservative they seemed to be. You don't see a lot of racial prejudice around here, but there is religious prejudice.
Where did you find that the 5th district in MN is majority Muslim?A Muslim "progessive" wins in a majority Muslim district? And her religion has no bearing on her victory?
Please remove the blinders, I bet this had a lot to do with her win, along with her destroy America ideals!
His government is now your government.I would say yes to petition HIS government.
Not starting a fight. But as many, many others on INGO have stated, I see no difference between the rights detailed in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated there is no hierarchy built into the Bill of Rights. Agreeing with the Supreme Court as to this issue is not out of line in any way.Oh for God sake Kirk.
really. Come on man. Cheeseburger summit and serious discuss time.
Man, you sound like a lawyer or something. LOLHis government is now your government.
Please understand that I cannot comment, and am not commenting, on the situation at Camp Atterbury I am merely pointing out that the misconceptions regarding firearms ownership and non-citizens.
Most of what I was talking about was 4th Amendment territory. The original post was referring to 2nd Amendment. However, subsequently, the question was posed does the US Constitution apply to non-citizens. I was answering that question. In general, yes the US Constitution applies to ALL who find themselves within our boarders.Human rights Denny. To be expected no matter where we are.
not apples-apples.
this is about own/bear arms. We are going off a bit.
So your OK with just anyone getting off a plane from God knows Where and being able to bypass everything we are held accountable to and buy a gun.
did I wake up in the ****ing “Twilight” zone for crap sake.
our own Gov vette’s us to through a 4473 and we have to be squeaky clean. So let’s just let these unknowns step around the rules in place and arm up.
yup. I hear Rod Sirling speaking in the background.
Wow, there's a lot here.
"Atterbury range has to close because muh refugees might go on shooting sprees!" is textbook anti-gun bleating.
Especially as most terror attacks are not done with firearms.
"ZOMG, non citizens can buy guns?" Yes, my family and I were legal residents for 7 years before we became citizens, and I even enlisted in the US military in that timeframe. We owned guns. We paid taxes. We owned a house. We spoke American English.
And yes, while we were resident aliens it was made clear that anything from shoplifting to smoking a joint could be considered valid grounds to deny citizenship. It entirely depends on your immigration officer.
The Taliban hasn't committed any terror acts on US soil I'm aware of. They're happy to shag goats, abuse women, read their version of the Quran, and ignore the world. Al Qaida has committed a small amount of terrorism since Sep 11, but not very effectively.
There's little evidence of them sneaking out via refugees. They're happy to see the non-compliant go.
While there's certainly a concern here, it's on my list somewhere below my concern that "if the King of Spain's motorcade breaks down on the state road in front of my house, do I have enough saffron to make an emergency paella?"
Dearborn has a lot of Muslims, but isn't "Entirely" Muslim.
Wow, there's a lot here.
"Atterbury range has to close because muh refugees might go on shooting sprees!" is textbook anti-gun bleating.
Especially as most terror attacks are not done with firearms.
"ZOMG, non citizens can buy guns?" Yes, my family and I were legal residents for 7 years before we became citizens, and I even enlisted in the US military in that timeframe. We owned guns. We paid taxes. We owned a house. We spoke American English.
And yes, while we were resident aliens it was made clear that anything from shoplifting to smoking a joint could be considered valid grounds to deny citizenship. It entirely depends on your immigration officer.
The Taliban hasn't committed any terror acts on US soil I'm aware of. They're happy to shag goats, abuse women, read their version of the Quran, and ignore the world. Al Qaida has committed a small amount of terrorism since Sep 11, but not very effectively.
There's little evidence of them sneaking out via refugees. They're happy to see the non-compliant go.
While there's certainly a concern here, it's on my list somewhere below my concern that "if the King of Spain's motorcade breaks down on the state road in front of my house, do I have enough saffron to make an emergency paella?"
Dearborn has a lot of Muslims, but isn't "Entirely" Muslim.