Howdy, y'all.

Nah. He's just in on the simple truth that not all cultures have equal worth.

How do you figure

But he didn't ban muslims

He initiated a lockdown on ingress into the country from a couple of Middle Eastern hellholes, sure.

But he didn't ban Muslims.

I'm not sure where you're getting that he wanted to ban all Muslims.

[citation needed]

That's not a ban of Muslims.

Because that's not banning Muslims

It's temporarily shutting down immigration from target countries.

In the same way that denying import of a specific model of car is not a ban of that car.

Banning a group of people from entering the country is not the same as banning that group of people from the country.

There are millions upon millions already here.

That's what a ban of all Muslims is, which you kept on about.

Which, I mean, I can't exactly say it's a bad idea.

The immigration numbers are going be met, regardless.

And it's not like we're losing out on anything by turning down immigration from the ass crack of the planet

The constitution doesn't address immigration, nor non-American citizens.

Some are, yes.

Immigration is not an inalienable right.

You can, for example, believe whatever you want. I don't have to let you stand in a particular place to allow you to do so, however.

Oh, God no.

Perish the thought.

I'm simply against the conflation of foreign nationals and American citizens, and the mistaken belief that they're somehow afforded the rights and protections granted by the US Constitution, as well as the mistaken logic that immigration is somehow an inalienable right provided by such.

Not given, no.

Codified in some cases.

Not given, though.

That's the meaning of inalienable.

They're not given by the government.

How do you mean

And no.

That's, uh, that's not what I said.

Where in that did you read that only Americans deserve religious freedom?

The Constitution DOES only apply to Americans.

I am not subject to, for example, Canadian code and laws, nor the laws of Zimbabwe, or China.

The same way that a Saudi is not subject to the US Constitution.

How do you figure

They're sovereign countries, not bound by our laws.

Just because we think that doesn't mean that the Crown Prince of Saud believes the same to be true.

Or the PM of the UK

Or the President of France

We're not taking away anything.

Saying that someone can't enter our country isn't denying them their religious freedom.

Allowing them to come into our country and then forcing them to convert under threat of the sword would be a sanction against religious freedom, sure.

But that's not what's taking place or even being discussed

He wanted forced conversion under threat of violence?

Now you're really off your rocker.

Which... again, doesn't apply to anyone who's an American citizen.

It only restricted entry by foreign nationals.

Who are not, you know. American citizens.

Except the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals.

It applies to American citizens.

This is the point of sovereignty.

You don't seem to be very familiar with our Constitution.

We recognize them as such, under the Constitution, applying to citizens of the sovereign entity that is the United States of America. Outside of those parameters, the discussion is philosophical at best.

No, of course not.

Because we're not in charge of the entire world.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

We don't owe the citizens of another country anything.

Including guaranteed admission.

The same way that France doesn't owe me anything.

Or Japan.

I'm not extended any rights or protections under Japanese law that protects its citizens

Because I'm not a Japanese national.

I'm not understanding what difficulty you're having with the concept of sovereignty.

And as Americans, it's our play in determining who gets in and who doesn't.

Except we're not limiting their religious freedom.

They can practice it all they want, exactly where they are.

We restrict the ability to immigrate for a whooooole lot more than that, if that's your beef.

Except they're not American citizens, and do not possess that right under the Constitution, and as such are fair game for us flexing sovereignty and saying we don't want any more of a backwards-ass, xenophobic religion predicated on violence in our country.

I spent eight years in the middle of that shit. It's not something you want in your homeland.

I'm not talking the washed up version you see in most places in the west.

Islam lite is what we see on the streets here, usually. Islamic equivalent of reformist or modernist Jews.

kek

Deuces.

Yeah. As in throwing deuces, two fingers up, don't let the door hit you.

What are you talking about?

Not sure what you mean.

How am I speaking like I'm in a movie.

Color me fascinated.

Saying "deuces" is talking like I'm in a movie?

It's a pretty common phrase over here.

Most places I've lived across the country. I'm currently west coast, though.

I have noticed it's seemingly more common among military folk, so there it is.

Nah, I'm up towards Vancouver. Seattle.

Yeah, it's not great.

Fiancee and my job are here, though.

Oh, Seattle is a fucking hellhole.

Place is overrun with junkies and homeless people. 18th largest city in the United States, 3rd largest homeless population.

Most of them unsheltered, because they don't want to comply with the regulations the shelters have in place.

Well, of another one of them attacks one of my coworkers, I'm not gonna lie and say it wouldn't be great to walk through the city with a flamethrower.

Nothing a good coat of fire wouldn't fix.

Can't walk through a park without tripping on heroin needles.

Given the current political climate up here, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea. SPD has instituted a hands off policy on homeless and most junkies, so you can't even get police help if a dispatcher thinks you're talking about a homeless person.

Fiancee got attacked by one at work a few weeks ago, dude was out of his mind.

Cops never even showed up to take a police report.

So, here's hoping for about six feet of snow and a cold winter.

Sure, let's go with that.