That’s fine, therajraj…and I disagree with you…
What makes it tough?
Israel is a speck of an Oil-less spiritual Oasis in the middle of a 1,500 year-old Civil War.
Instead of using the Bounty of Oil Money to fuel the prosperity of their people and their Countries…these countries use the money to kill each other and people who don’t agree with them.
Blaming “Da Jooz’” on their problems borders on insanity.
One dangerous aspect of Trump’s rise in the GoP is the embracing of a sort of Nationalistic Big Government Entitlement program. You see, the problem isn’t entitlements, in fact Trump sees the case for universal health care (just not the right time, or some such thing). Despite Paul Ryan’s math and charts of last election, trying to convince us all of the need to begin discussing real and tangible entitlements reforms before they–and servicing the debt–consume pretty much all revenue…Despite his arguments that there is no growing our way to being able to afford those obligations, Trump is saying otherwise. No, the government can afford to care for you without touching your entitlements (except for “waste and fraud”) because he, Trump, can “grow our way out.” And, by dealing with the foreigner cheating you. No, it isn’t the structural unsoundness of these programs at all.
The new GoP position on entitlements.
That’s not what I’m doing at all. I’m saying if you hold standard for X group then you must hold the same standard for Y group if you believe in universal standards.
If you don’t and hold different groups to different standards you reveal your bigotry.
How about this: if it’s morally correct for Saudi Arabia to ban non-muslims then it’s okay for the US to ban muslims.
If it’s okay for Cuba to impose a travel ban on Americans, it’s okay for Americans to impose a travel ban on people from muslim countries
It’s not possible to apply universal standards to all things. There is no such thing as a universal standard for national security / border security. Circumstances are not the same in all regions of the world.
Further, what the Saudis or Israels do is irrelevant as far as the U.S. is concerned. As an American, I believe the U.S. should be held to a higher standard than other nations.
Further still, the US was founded in part as a means of escaping religious persecution. Now here we are 240 years later wanting to ban an entire religion from just traveling to America.
You want to ban an entire group based solely on their religion…
[quote]
It’s not possible to apply universal standards to all things. There is no such thing as a universal standard for national security / border security. Circumstances are not the same in all regions of the world. [/quote]
Nope I believe morality is universal.
[quote]
Further, what the Saudis or Israels do is irrelevant as far as the U.S. is concerned. As an American, I believe the U.S. should be held to a higher standard than other nations. [/quote]
Okay.
[quote]
Further still, the US was founded in part as a means of escaping religious persecution. Now here we are 240 years later wanting to ban an entire religion from just traveling to America. [/quote]
The constitution applies to citizens, the ban would be applied to non-citizens. Current muslim americans will be allowed to enter and exit like any other citizen.
I think its morally correct for all countries to do that if they so desired.
Perhaps the champion of liberal democracy shouldn’t hold itself to the same standards as theocratic autocracies. Trump’s positions are not only counterproductive, but they are antithetical to core American values.
P.S., aren’t you Canadian?
The point was made here in the Dr. Pangloss’ quote and in the links, as well as elsewhere, that labelling matters. Tying Trump inextricably to the GoP is already underway: Paul Ryan's future on line as he huddles with Donald Trump - POLITICO
“loyal member of Trump’s Republican Party”. This is death to the GoP. Once the label has stuck, all his failed policies will become de facto GoP policies, even though they are not. The case is arguably worse if party unification occurs around Trump, because then you will no longer have the “look, we all hate him and a lot of us didn’t endorse him OR his policies” card to play in defense to the inevitable Democrat PR and media onslaught.
There are only three ways to avoid this: 1) avoid being labelled, or having the label stick, 2) Trump loses, and everybody manages to not only jump ship but also swing public perception that they ALWAYS were against him, or 3) make Trump the most successful president of the last 50 years. Which has less than a snowball’s chance in hell.
There are very few black and white issues where morality is universal.
I was talking about why people came to the new world to begin with.
Once again, banning non-citizen Muslim is impossible and it would be detrimental to our economy in numerous ways.
That is completely absurd.
Is it morally correct for us to ban the entry of all Mexicans into the U.S.?
Canadian citizen and permanent US legal alien
Is it morally correct for us to ban the entry of all Canadians into the U.S.? You did send us Justin Bieber after all.
Cool. Care to address the former? The P.S. is P.S., after all.
What’s inaccurate about it?
I’m talking specifically about Trump and TheRajraj.
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” a campaign press release said.
[quote] Bismark
Perhaps the champion of liberal democracy shouldn’t hold itself to the same standards as theocratic autocracies.
[/quote]
If you’re trying to determine whether something is morally correct it doesn’t matter.
I don’t understand how you can possibly argue it is morally just to ban an entire group of people based on the actions of 1% of them.
I can understand your argument if it’s coming from a national security perspective, I still wouldn’t agree, but at least it would make sense. Trying to claim the moral high ground, though, that’s nuts.
Out of curiosity am I the only person here who supports a Muslim ban? I can’t be right?
I think nations are allowed to control which non-citizens enter their country period. If I recall correctly, the US closed it’s borders in the 1920s for a while in fear of communists enter their country? Well I have no problem with that either from a moral perspective
Closing the borders to everyone traveling out of a specific nation or even entirely for national security purposes is one thing. Closing the borders to a specific group of non-combats, that have done nothing wrong, is another matter entirely.