DanG

Uh, yeah. That's exactly what is being suggested. If you want to change the discussion, fine. But we're talking about a total ban on Muslims entering the US. Weak as shit. When the best you're got is "I know a lot about this, so don't bother disagreeing with me" it usually shows that you haven't examined your thoughts on the matter with any criticality. Nice try shutting me up without actually saying anything. Unfortunately, the tactic is obvious. As my 2nd grade teacher told me, if you can't explain it to someone else, you don't really understand it yourself. Any meaningful rebuttal to my points? Don't worry, I don't really expect anything, but if you'd like to respond, here is your chance. - Dan G

Well, President Trump will be a great deal like Ron. Hillary is looking better every day. - Dan G

First of all, your premise is flawed. The proposal isn't about keeping terrorists out of the country, it is about keeping Muslims out of the country. You assume that Muslim=terrorist. You also assume that terrorists are so stupid that they would self-identify as Muslims. If they are dedicated enough to spend 2+ years going through the refugee approval process, don't you think they might be capable of claiming to be Christian? Secondly, by banning Muslim movement into the US, we confirm what ISIS has been saying all along, that the US is at war with Islam. They can legitimately say, "Look, the US hates all Muslims. They have been killing us over here for decades because they want to destroy Islam!" Anti-Muslim legislation is the best ISIS recruiting tool possible. And you know who the most valuable recruits are? Young, disgruntled Muslims living in the US already. They won't need to send Syrian ISIS fighters off to spend 2+ years going throug a rigorous screening process, hoping not to get caught. They will just up their US recruitment and we'll have more of the same kind of attacks like San Bernadino. For someone who claims to have a military mind, you sure don't understand insurgency tactics very well. - Dan G

Advice you should take yourself. Seriously. The usual reply from you when you don't have jack shit to say. Pitiful. - Dan G

I haven't seen that anywhere. Maybe a bit of hopeful thinking from the right wing news sphere? So what? Gun control isn't new either, but you'll still fight against that. We're talking about accepting refugees after a long (2+ years) vetting process that includes the FBI, DoD, and DHS. There is no credible threat from the Syrian refugees. Turning them away because of their religion is against everything this country used to stand for. - Dan G

I'm following the real story. Not sure what you are getting from Fox, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh. The San Bernadino terrorists were not refugees. They did not sneak into the country pretending to be refugees. They had lived here for many, many years. How will stopping refugees from coming here have prevented what they did? - Dan G

Pool of blood? Seriously? In the US we had one lone wolf Muslim attack, and one lone wold Christian attack in the same week. Both of these attacks were from inside, not from refugees. The people who attacked Paris were also from inside the EU. This is plain and simple bigotry and pandering to the cowardly right wing. Banning Muslim immigration will make the US less safe. It is stupidity at its height. - Dan G

So, at what level does it become a problem? Some people would say that one bad cop, or one corrupt agency is too many. - Dan G

Sounds a lot like how ISIS uses Islam. - Dan G

So, 0.194% is not bad, huh? How about if 0.194% of the Syrian refugees we let resettle in the US are ISIS terrorists? That's 19 terrorists for every 10,000 people we let in. Is that an accceptable number? If not, why is it okay to have that number of corrupt police departments? There are some statistics that are properly converted to a per capita basis, and there are some that need to remain absolute numbers. - Dan G

I'm waiting for rushmc to come along and proclaim you a bigot. - Dan G

14 people getting shot is out greatest national tragedy now? You need to study US history a little more. - Dan G

Bigotry on display Again - Dan G

Puhleeze - Dan G

Fixed that for ya. - Dan G

Thank you. Sometimes, it takes a Canadian. - Dan G

No, you didn't answer the question. The question was about what this law actually acomplishes, practically. Apparently, it keeps bullets themselves from being banned as toxic substances, but does not prevent the EPA from regulating the manufacturing process. You could have just said that. Instead you had to assume that I had read the latest anti-Obama gun-grabber newsletter. - Dan G

OK, you don't want to answer the question. Anyone else? I don't feel like wading through 1,000 right wing conspiracy web pages to figure out what this legislation actually does. - Dan G

What does that mean, in practical terms? I think the EPA should still have authority to control factories that make ammunition if they are using nasty chemicals to do so. - Dan G

I agree with that. I think I agree with what you are saying, but not really with how it came out. I don't think the government should wait for the culture to catch up before enacting laws that prevent inequalities. If it did, then I can't see how we'd ever get out of the Jim Crow era, for example. I think government should act in a way that is morally correct, not just popular. Of course, some people will try to use invalid moral arguments to push a personal agenda, and other people will complain that any unpopular governmnt action (no matter how just) is tyranny. These things usually get worked out in hindsight, but I don't think governments should always wait for hindsight to kick in. Hell, there are still people who think interning Japanese-Americans during WWII was the right thing to do. I have zero bumpers stickers on my car. No ofense taken. But, man, it sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays. - Dan G

I think I see what you are saying. I'm maybe a little less cynical. I think that on some issues (especially social issues) the Dems are winning because they are actually right, not just because they've tricked people into believing they are right. On other issues, mostly fiscal, both sides just lie like crazy and say anyone who disagrees is a commie/fascist/racist/low-information voter. - Dan G

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "it". I thought you were saying that the Democrats are better at getting people to believe anything they say with a religious fervor, even if it has no basis is reality and is to their own detriment, much like Jim Jones. If that is what you were saying, I think both parties do it. I just don't figure why you think the Democrats do it better. - Dan G

I don't see that. How do you figure? - Dan G

You forgot that it applies just as validly to deniers as to alarmists. In other words, it is a stupid, pointless article. Or, in even other words, it's just a troll article. - Dan G

There goes your argument that wattsupwiththat.com isn's a biased source of climate reporting, huh? - Dan G