Some mothertrucker in France just killed a bunch of folks!

How is it your job to protect people who mean you no harm? Did you join the SAS or something?

The people who mean you no harm aren't your problem. The people whose religious beliefs compel them to kill you is.

No, I became an officer of the court whose responsibility it is to respect and uphold the universal civil liberties that afford us westerners the freedoms we enjoy. To respect the law, and the reasoning behind it.

Also, because I'm not an arsehole like you.

Where did I succumb to prejudice today? There was an attack, I suspected it was an attack by islamist scum, and I was right.

You are preaching to the choir here! But you choose to put me in the same box with gturner and Dinner. That's offensive as hell! I even disagreed with Zombie when he said you have a boner for Islam, but you rated my post "facepalm". What the fuck is your problem?

Not just today, but I think you are teetering on the edge and it won't take much to push you over. I think you are very close to thinking that what they say is right and are conflicted over it. I used today as an example because before we even knew anything you were ready to believe the most violent scenario possible and attribute it to "Islam".

In contrast, I am not conflicted in the knowledge that guilty be association is wrong and that innocent people are being caught up in and tarred over this whole situation....just as the extremists desire.

Nah, Jansen was once teetering, but he realized it and took a step back. He even said as much in a post about six weeks ago. He's not one of those other assholes.

Did you have a problem when the RAF was bombing the fuck out of innocent Germans?

Ridiculous comparison is ridiculous.

That is unless you're recognising Islamic State as a legitimate country and anyone who identifies with them as citizens of said country, even if they're from all manner of places?

Hey, I'll tell you what gtardo, I'm gonna go into a coffee shop tomorrow and shoot to death 25 people. I'm going to declare my allegiance to the United States in doing so and that I should be entitled to the Second Amendment where ever I am. This will clearly show that Americans are savage, violent animals.

Go for it! Europeans would be relieved to have a Wednesday terrorist attack that wasn't from Muslims.

Hmmm........wouldn't you need proof linking something somebody said to inspiring any particular violent act? In other words what is the standard for "deliberately inciting"? It sure sounds like there is a lot of room for abuse of power and favoritism and prejudice in this law of yours.

Inciting racial hatred does not have to be qualified by a violent act.

I just find it amusing that you're willing to ignore Trump's religious profiling, but now you're bellyaching because the UK has legislation against hate that you deem oppressive.

Maybe you should consider that if Trump were talking of banning Muslims from the UK he would be advocating a restriction on freedom of expression. So before you claim we're backwards, look and the person you're gonna vote for.

Trumps not advocating a ban on freedom of expression, he's advocating a temporary ban on Muslim immigration from countries with terrorism problems because we can't vet such people. We used to ban immigration from parts of Eastern Europe for the same reason.

Immigration is not a human right, anymore than I have the right to move into your house.

Whoever said it was?

Not being discriminated against based on coluor, religion and culture are the liberties in question. If you con be so passionate about the right to have a piece of machinery that can kill people, why can't you have the same passion over the rights of an innocent with the same biology as you?

Because immigration is not a human right, and we can discriminate against immigrants based on anything. We're deciding what outsiders we'll let join our group. Perhaps we only want to allow Harry Potter fans in. Perhaps we don't want any Harry Potter fans. Perhaps we only want tall people, or hot young blondes nymphomaniacs who can recite dialog from Friends. We can do that, and it's not violating anyone's rights.

And how many Russian spies and Commies did we ever catch?

The rest of the world will remember such sentiments as King Donald runs the sane portion of America out the country.

I'm not voting this time. I honestly cannot bring myself to vote for either one of them.

Not even for Gary Johnson? Most of my family is voting for him.

My black, solidly Democrat family, through no encouragement from myself, aren't even voting for Hilary.

Come on, dude. Your state is solidly red. You can "waste" a vote on a third party candidate and at least give them a wake up call.

It's quite clear you won't be taking up arms because you'll be too busy on your knees five times a day praying after converting like the coward you are.

It wasn't about commies, it was about Eastern European terrorists. They'd get over here and go nuts, so we closed the door on them.

And you would be wrong.

German families faced a lot more harassment and watching. All the Japanese were locked up in FDR's concentration camps. Only some Germans and Italians were locked up.

On a postive note it has been two years since the last boat person showed up in Australia so don't let anyone say the boat people can't be stopped. It just takes the will to enact the right policies. We know what those policies are and they are both fair and effective.

And yet none of the Germans that were harassed and watched had to be locked up and trust their neighbors not to sell their properties while they were gone.

Two nationalities actively harming 'Murica yet one group gets farore penalized than the other.

11,000 Germans and Italians were interned, often in the same camps as the Japanese. Interning them all, or removing them from east coast exclusion zones, was considered but the numbers were too large to be feasible. Only a tiny number of the 150,000 Japanese living in Hawaii were interned.

And of course interning them was opposed by many prominent Republicans who thought it was un-American, but their arguments carried no weight with the party that fought to preserve and protect perpetual race-based human slavery.

Well hell it's just your typical Democrats doing that sweetcheeks.....

But removing ten times as many zJapanese was worth the costs, right?
Uh-huh.

Daisuke Suzuki and Hansen Gruber could both have taken the name John Smith, but one could blend into white America a lot better than the other.

No, dear. That was conservatives doing that. The same ones that left the party twenty years later because LBJ signed civil rights protections into laws and transfered their hateful ideals into the Party of Lincoln.

Please be smarter than to use gturner level revision of history.

I didn't know the west coast was full of Southern Democrats, but I suppose it's entirely possible that Californians supported segregation.

Actually yes, there was quite a bit of segregation here. Even a white looking child with a Hispanic last name could not enroll into some schools. The Chinatown and Japantowns of San Francisco and San Jose were legalized ghettos. So we're the Irishtowns and Germantowns of the East Coast. Jews couldn't own property in LA Jolla until the early 70s.

Again, the discrimination that's gone on in our country does not fall solely on the South, but they are very much the ones riding shotgun on the short bus over this.

You realize that if we have many more Somalis leaving to join ISIS, Hillary will put everyone of African descent into camps? That way we won't be discriminating against Muslims, which would be bigotry.

You can't be so dumb to think FDR was a conservative.

And news for you:

Only one Democrat Senator who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act joined the Republican Party in 1964.

Just one. ONE.

Indeed, why would the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 drop out of the Democrat party and join the very party that overwhelmingly supported the bill?



Here is what your hero LBJ thought of your parents in 1957:

"These Negroes, they're getting uppity these days. That's a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we've got to do something about this. We've got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don't move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there'll be no way to stop them. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Republican Senator Everett Dirksen is the one who pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through the Senate. It wasn't LBJ. Dirksen also was instrumental in the passage of the 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts. All supported by a majority of Republicans who STAYED Republican after the votes. Dirksen wrote the 65 and 68 acts.

And yet, LBJ signed it into law going against his partyembers anyway , and coincidentally the Democrat party became more progressive as the GOP became less so.

So if it wasn't the Civil Rights thing that reserved the positions, what else was responsible? I'm sincerely coming up blank.