According to the Gallup Poll (http://news.aol.com/gallup/story/_a/anti-muslim-feelings-fairly-common-in-us/20060810154009990001), 39% of Americans would favor that Muslims be required to carry a special ID. Other countries have had policies like this in the past - Germany under the Nazis, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and South Africa under apartheid.

We often hear the discussion of how much freedom we should sacrifice for the sake of security. 39% of Americans, in my opinion, are willing to sacrifice too much.

I absolutely think they should be made to carry special IDs. As a matter of fact, if they're here on visas, then I believe they should be electronically chipped and their movements should be tracked via GPS and the data accumulated should be logged in a supercomputer with special programs designed to utilize a complex set of algorithms to establish predicted behaviors and frequently traveled spots. I don't trust 'em any further than I can throw 'em, and if they wanna visit OUR country (read; be our guests), then they can follow our rules. I mean, after all, they shouldn't be bothered by the existence of such a system if their intentions are noble, and if they don't "like" it, then they can get the fuck out. The choice is theirs. I say we'll take the implant out (free of charge) when they leave, but if they don't want to be chipped in the first place, then they can go elsewhere for their education or to plant their bombs. Try France.

Remember Denmark, fuckers...

Maybe we should just make them wear arm bands....

LOL.. all i have to say... is that if u keep on getting stung by bees... u make sure u are aware if a bee is around.. even if u hurt its feelings...

Wow, what an absolutely retarded idea. What happened to "all men are created equal"? I suppose some are more equal than others.

Wow, what an absolutely retarded idea. What happened to "all men are created equal"? I suppose some are more equal than others.

Yes, but do they consider us as equals. See how they will treat us once they have the upper hand.

Characteristics of dhimmitude



The basic element of dhimmitude is a land expropriation through a pact: 'land for peace'. The vanquished populations of territories taken during a millennium of jihad were ‘protected’, providing they recognized the Islamic ownership of their lands, which had now become dar al-Islam, and that they submitted to Islamic authority.



The vanquished peoples are granted security for their life and possessions by the Muslim authority, as well as a relative self‑autonomous administration under their religious leaders, and permission to worship according to the modalities of the treaties. This concept of 'toleration' is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. There are different opinions among the jurists concerning which transgresSpamsion of these obligations can be considered as breaking the protection pact (dhimma), and what sanctions should be applied.



The first 'right' is the right to life, which was conceded on payment of the jizya (Koran 9:29), a poll-tax paid with humiliation by the dhimmi.. The refusal to pay the jizya is considered by all jurists as a rupture of the dhimma, which automatically restores to the umma its initial rights of war ‑ to kill and to dispossess the dhimmi, or to expel him, because he has therefore returned to his former status of being an unsubjected infidel.



Hence Abu Yusuf wrote in his book on the kharaj (land tax) that it was not allowed for the governor to exempt any Jew, Christian, or other dhimmis from the jizya: “and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, for their lives and belongings are spared only because of payment of the poll tax." 9



Protection is abolished if the dhimmis rebel against Islamic law, give allegiance to a non‑Muslim power, refuse to pay the jizya, entice a Muslim from his faith, harm a Muslim or his property, or commit blasphemy. The moment the pact of protection is abolished the jihad resumes, which means that the lives of the dhimmis and their property are forfeited. Today, one finds Islamists in Upper Egypt who kill and pillage Copts, because they argue that these dhimmis have forfeited their 'protection' as they no longer pay the jizya.



The Baha'i religion is not protected even today in Iran. In 1994 two Muslims kidnapped and killed a Baha'i. The Islamic court held that as the Baha'is were "unprotected infidels... the issue of retribution is null and void". 10 This means that an infidel has no human rights, unless he is protected by Islamic law.



In the context of its time, the protection system presented both positive and negative aspects. It provided security and a measure of religious autonomy, but in a legal context of discrimination. These rules, mostly estabSpamlished from the eighth to ninth centuries by the founders of the four schools of Islamic law, set the pattern of the Muslim community's social behavior toward dhimmis.

What happened to "all men are created equal"?
Do you really believe that? I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a great pipe dream and all, but somehow, I seriously doubt that you think you're on par with a mongoloid. That aside, we’re not addressing a core problem here, and that's simply that Muslims are far more likely to target our country (to the tune of exponentially) when it comes to perpetrating acts of terror on our soil. Reference those fucks who were here in 1999 and 2000 on student visas. The real question is could 9/11 have been avoided if the proper checks were in place?

Maybe we should just make them wear arm bands....
Why???

They already wear head bands.

Do you really believe that? I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a great pipe dream and all, but somehow, I seriously doubt that you think you're on par with a mongoloid. That aside, we’re not addressing a core problem here, and that's simply that Muslims are far more likely to target our country (to the tune of exponentially) when it comes to perpetrating acts of terror on our soil. Reference those fucks who were here in 1999 and 2000 on student visas. The real question is could 9/11 have been avoided if the proper checks were in place?
Why not put them in camps like we did to the Japanese. :rolleyes:

Profiling by race is stupid and leads to racism and a lot of hate. It's geography that we should be profiling by. If a certain area of the world is known for harboring or producing terrorists then we should pay more attention to people who come from those areas.

The last batch were British.

Profiling by race is stupid and leads to racism and a lot of hate. It's geography that we should be profiling by. If a certain area of the world is known for harboring or producing terrorists then we should pay more attention to people who come from those areas.
And I wasn't so much advocating that we profile by race as I was by creed. It seems to me that every single Middle Eastern country produces Muslim radicals, so you're right - profiling by race (or country, for that matter) is stupid and pointless.

The last batch were British.
and we profiled them for a good reason.

Why not put them in camps like we did to the Japanese. :rolleyes:
I'd rather just deny them entrance into our country, for it's a whole lot cheaper then setting up internment camps. As an alternative to keeping them out, why don’t we just chip them like I suggested earlier? They’ll still have the freedom to do whatever they want, but we’ll know where they congregate and what they talk about. These people aren’t American citizens and they don’t deserve our constitutional protections. Those are set up to protect US, not them.

I'd rather just deny them entrance into our country, for it's a whole lot cheaper then setting up internment camps. As an alternative to keeping them out, why don’t we just chip them like I suggested earlier? They’ll still have the freedom to do whatever they want, but we’ll know where they congregate and what they talk about. These people aren’t American citizens and they don’t deserve our constitutional protections. Those are set up to protect US, not them.
LMAO! You with wanting to kill people with AIDS and treating Muslims as less than people! You remind me of a Nazi in many ways! Kudos to you!

Maybe when they get their ID card they can be held at special processing centers out in the countryside. We could call the first center 'owshoeits' - yeah that sounds like a grand name. We need also to make sure the ID centers have tall chimneys and plenty of large community showers so they can get cleaned up before the photos.

Oh yeah and we'll need a big hole in the ground nearby to serve as a large unmarked grave (in case any of them get sick).

I'd rather just deny them entrance into our country, for it's a whole lot cheaper then setting up internment camps. As an alternative to keeping them out, why don’t we just chip them like I suggested earlier? They’ll still have the freedom to do whatever they want, but we’ll know where they congregate and what they talk about. These people aren’t American citizens and they don’t deserve our constitutional protections. Those are set up to protect US, not them.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
UMMMM like this is a time of war and we should be allowed to like not follow the constitution!!!:lolhit:

UMMMM like this is a time of war and we should be allowed to like not follow the constitution!!!:lolhit:

Even the Greeks who founded democracy knew that they had to give up some freedoms to protect their democracy from racist governments.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.03.12.CAIRful-X.gif

Maybe when they get their ID card they can be held at special processing centers out in the countryside. We could call the first center 'owshoeits' - yeah that sounds like a grand name. We need also to make sure the ID centers have tall chimneys and plenty of large community showers so they can get cleaned up before the photos.

Oh yeah and we'll need a big hole in the ground nearby to serve as a large unmarked grave (in case any of them get sick).

Are you saying that we are going to fire up the old gas chambers and gas the Muslims like Hitler did to the Jews?

Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews; But, we only want to indentify those who have declared Jihad against America and all Western nations. Open your eyes and see what they are doing to us now and what they will do if we let our guard down. Maybe you would like to pretend everybody loves us as long as we love them.

Even the Greeks who founded democracy knew that they had to give up some freedoms to protect their democracy from racist governments.

But then again they didn't have a Constitution. Which other parts of the Constitution are you OK with suspending?

Are you saying that we are going to fire up the old gas chambers and gas the Muslims like Hitler did to the Jews?

Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews; But, we only want to indentify those who have declared Jihad against America and all Western nations. Open your eyes and see what they are doing to us now and what they will do if we let our guard down. Maybe you would like to pretend everybody loves us as long as we love them.

No old reb... thats breaking their little plan

The people like OD and FT only see in black and white... if we dont let them into the country.. we are JUST LIKE the Nazi's... forget that we dont kill them and don't want to exterminate their race. They have to pull the nazi card, but the fact is the only people who are like Nazi's in today's world are the people that people like FT DEFEND... thats a fact.

Are you saying that we are going to fire up the old gas chambers and gas the Muslims like Hitler did to the Jews?

Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews; But, we only want to indentify those who have declared Jihad against America and all Western nations. Open your eyes and see what they are doing to us now and what they will do if we let our guard down. Maybe you would like to pretend everybody loves us as long as we love them.

No, I'm not saying that - I was joking.

The risk from terrorists is incredibly low, far far lower than being a victim of crime while walking on the street, or being in a car crash. It needs to be put into perspective.

To say we are in war is a misnomer. Sure, plenty of Muslims hate the US, but only a small group want to do terrorist acts against the US. So few in fact that nothing hs happened in the 5 years since 9/11. Forget Iraq - that is a diversion that has nothing to do with terrorism (apart from perhaps increase the risk of it)

It's not a war, it's a issue of some potential criminals who want to commit crimnial acts. It's a police action between countries via intelligence & so on.

Unlike Europe, Muslims in the US are mostly all middle class. National ID cards is a stupid idea. It presents zero benefit & plenty of downside.

The government just need to continue whatever they are doing to track people coming in to the country with muslim backgrounds & do these checks behind the scenes.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/846/n1to3.gif
We have something like this...
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3549/j2cx9.jpg
We could train our forces to handle a job like this one...
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3812/j3ai5.jpg
And we could dress Moslems like this ....

Also, we could round them up, and send all moslems to the camps, somewhere in Alaska...

If this is what we want?????

This relates more to the Japanese during WW2 and not the Jews.

The people like OD and FT only see in black and white...

Guffaw!!

Coming from YOU, one the THE MOST binary thinking, **it's either black or white** individuals that I have ever come into contact with in my life, THAT commentary is truly hilarious!!!

if we dont let them into the country.. we are JUST LIKE the Nazi's... forget that we dont kill them and don't want to exterminate their race.

It might interest you to note, you pathetic imbecile, that I happen to AGREE WITH Praetorian's suggestions about methods of tracking people in this country who are Muslims.

They have to pull the nazi card, but the fact is the only people who are like Nazi's in today's world are the people that people like FT DEFEND... thats a fact.

The only ""fact"" evident in this exchange is that you are a laughably clueless buffoon who ascribes political/sociological positions to people of whom you have ZERO idea what they would or would not support.

I for one see NO problem with requiring Muslims in this country who are here on visas to be required to carry a specialized I.D.

Stick THAT fact in your pipe and smoke it, Decka, you pathetic fool.

Guffaw!!

Coming from YOU, one the THE MOST binary thinking, **it's either black or white** individuals that I have ever come into contact with in my life, THAT commentary is truly hilarious!!!

from my experience and from seeing you "post" for awhile... u DO see things in black and white.. and take everything to the extreme, and i think many would agree with me...

and how do I see things in black and white.. considering that its what u hinted to?



It might interest you to note, you pathetic imbecile, that I happen to AGREE WITH Praetorian's suggestions about methods of tracking people in this country who are Muslims.

well okay FT i'll bite... call me suprised.



The only ""fact"" evident in this exchange is that you are a laughably clueless buffoon who ascribes political/sociological positions to people of whom you have ZERO idea what they would or would not support.

I for one see NO problem with requiring Muslims in this country who are here on visas to be required to carry a specialized I.D.

Stick THAT fact in your pipe and smoke it, Decka, you pathetic fool.

wow, i guess i struck a nerve...

i cant beleive u actually agree with that... hey im glad to see u have SOME sense in that head of yours... even if its short change....

well okay FT ... ... call me suprised.


No...........I'll just stick with calling you what you are;

-- a pathetic imbecile.

Those of you who support the idea of this special ID, do you think that Muslims who are US citizens should have to carry it as well?

I don't have any trouble with those on visas being issued special ID's or even having tracking chips inserted. I don't see it as racial profiling as long as it's applied across the board to all being issued visas.

Tracking chips inserted? Jeez the airports have lines long enough without snarling the lines with outpatient surgery before you get thru customs.

Don't visa applications run through the American embasssy in the country the applicant is traveling from? The chips could be inserted there and activated automatically upon arrival in the U.S. when the traveler clears Immigration. Doesn't seem the lines in the departure areas would be any different.

We don't have to worry about ID tags, we can't even have wiretapping surveilance of terrorist. Will the Judge take responsibility for the next terrorist attack that occurs because we were blind sided to terrorist activities.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.08.17.Amended-X.gif



Judge Rules Terrorist Surveillance Program Unconstitutional.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. Will the Judge take responsibility for the next terrorist attack?

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

It should be noted that joining the ACLU in the suit was CAIR.

Posted by Forkum at 05:21 PM / Permalink

We don't have to worry about ID tags, we can't even have wiretapping surveilance of terrorist.


Sure we can reb, all we need is a warrant. Can you argue why we should have warrantless surveillance, or can you only misrepresent what the latest ruling was?

Sure we can reb, all we need is a warrant. Can you argue why we should have warrantless surveillance, or can you only misrepresent what the latest ruling was?

After the next terrorist attack, you will say that Bush is an idiot that can't protect us so we need a democrat in office.

After the next terrorist attack, you will say that Bush is an idiot that can't protect us so we need a democrat in office.

I'm saying that already, but not because I think we need to conduct warrantless surveilllance. If this is the best way Bush can come up with to "protect" me, he deserves to be called an idiot.

I see you can't argue why we need warrantless surveillance, all you can do is make preposterous statements about what I'll say in the furture.

According to the Gallup Poll (http://news.aol.com/gallup/story/_a/anti-muslim-feelings-fairly-common-in-us/20060810154009990001), 39% of Americans would favor that Muslims be required to carry a special ID. Other countries have had policies like this in the past - Germany under the Nazis, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and South Africa under apartheid.

We often hear the discussion of how much freedom we should sacrifice for the sake of security. 39% of Americans, in my opinion, are willing to sacrifice too much.


like what was said long ago, sacrificing freedom for security , you usually get neither. and what i have seen in history, you don't.

doing this in america is unconstitutional. just like the wiretapping made legal for a little while. and other laws and shite passed and allowed by congress and the president. when this is done it contradicts the constitution, usurps the basic line of america, and thus is TREASON. i'd be the first person to pull the lever just so i could hear all those congressional and presidential necks snap loud and clear.

I'm saying that already, but not because I think we need to conduct warrantless surveilllance. If this is the best way Bush can come up with to "protect" me, he deserves to be called an idiot.

I see you can't argue why we need warrantless surveillance, all you can do is make preposterous statements about what I'll say in the furture.

So, if privacy is more important than security then we must accept that some terrorist action will not be prevented. So what would be an acceptable cost for this freedom for terrorist? Ten deaths, one airliner, 5,000 deaths? What would be an acceptable price for not being able to monitor terrorist?

If we can't monitor their phones, maybe we could build a machine that reads peoples minds so we would know who is being good and who is being bad.

Don't visa applications run through the American embasssy in the country the applicant is traveling from? The chips could be inserted there and activated automatically upon arrival in the U.S. when the traveler clears Immigration. Doesn't seem the lines in the departure areas would be any different.

Inserting chips in visitors is a tin foil hat idea.

Many people don't get a visa, they just fill out a visa waver form on the plane. Depends what country you are from - visitors from 27 countries currently do not need a visa to enter the US.

LMAO! You with wanting to kill people with AIDS and treating Muslims as less than people!
You still remember that!? ;)

Oh, and I don't want to treat FOREIGN Muslims as "less than people"; I just want to secure our country from future attacks. Is that so wrong?

Tracking visitors is a good idea, inserting tracking chips into their body is not a good idea at all.

Maybe when they get their ID card they can be held at special processing centers out in the countryside. We could call the first center 'owshoeits' - yeah that sounds like a grand name. We need also to make sure the ID centers have tall chimneys and plenty of large community showers so they can get cleaned up before the photos.

Oh yeah and we'll need a big hole in the ground nearby to serve as a large unmarked grave (in case any of them get sick).
And here, I thought I was gonna be the only one to offer up a great suggestion...

Way to climb aboard, Drew. :)

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3812/j3ai5.jpg
And we could dress Moslems like this ....

Also, we could round them up, and send all moslems to the camps, somewhere in Alaska...

If this is what we want?????
Yeah, something like that...:rolleyes:

During war, and make no mistake about it, we are at war, people from certain countries are monitored more closely than the general population. During WWII my parents were visited by the authorities because both had emmigrated to the United States from Germany. They lived in a German neighborhood in NYC and there were FBI agents around all the time checking if anyone had a short wave radio, going through their mail, etc. That's the way it is during war. You give up some freedoms in order to safeguard greater freedoms.

In this war Moslems are the enemy. Not all Moslems but enough to make it advisable to monitor them more closely than the general public. If they are loyal Americans they will not greatly mind this slight inconvenience in their lives any more than I mind the inconvenience of having to go through airport security. If they are not loyal Americans, I see no reason to worry about how they feel. If they are foreignors who are here under our sufferance they have to accept the groundrules that apply to their visit.

Those of you who support the idea of this special ID, do you think that Muslims who are US citizens should have to carry it as well?
That's a good question.

I have difficulty with the idea of selectively applying rules for certain US citizens to follow, but I also struggle with the realization that many of these people (the US citizens who happen to be practicing Muslims) seem to place their allegiance to Muslim nations abroad with no regard for the U.S. I mean, what is it to be an American if our only basis for comparison lies in watching a bunch of foreigners take advantage of our generosity? My point is these people aren't here to embrace the United States; they're here to exploit it. America no longer represents an "idea"; it's been reduced to a fucking grab bag for non-U.S. citizens. For example, look at the number of illegals in California. Here, and for whatever reason, these people are actually PROUD to call themselves Mexican :@@: - they refer to us as "invaders", they fly their flag on OUR soil, and if not to add insult to injury, their entitlement mentality is second to none. The funny thing is, when you think about it, they're no different than any other foreigner vacationing in a country they despise. If we can assume (with a fair degree of accuracy, I might add) that they're motivated by the money they can make here (Mexican, Muslim, and the like), then why should we care if anyone is offended by something as trivial as being forced to carry a federally supplied ID card? In short, screw 'em. If they don't like it, then they can leave. They don't consider America their "real" home anyway.

Houston airports will profile facial expressions.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4125337.html

Twitch or break out in a rash and BAM!!! you're a terrorist.

During war, and make no mistake about it, we are at war
No we are not. Congress hasn't declared war & you can't be at war with a bunch of criminals.

In this war Moslems are the enemy. No they are not. Radical criminals are the enemy.

If they are loyal Americans they will not greatly mind this slight inconvenience in their lives
Yes they will and rightly so. US citizens can not be treated in this fashion no matter what their religion.

The risk of terrorism impacting a persons life is insignificant. The hysteria surrounding it is completely irrational.

During war, and make no mistake about it, we are at war, people from certain countries are monitored more closely than the general population. During WWII my parents were visited by the authorities because both had emmigrated to the United States from Germany. They lived in a German neighborhood in NYC and there were FBI agents around all the time checking if anyone had a short wave radio, going through their mail, etc. That's the way it is during war. You give up some freedoms in order to safeguard greater freedoms.

I don't have a problem with the idea of sacrificing some freedoms in a time of war. The issue I have is that whether we call this a war or something else, there's no foreseeable end in sight, so the freedoms we sacrifice now we're probably not going to get back.

You guys are crazy. Expect outrage from the American Muslim community and their cry for monetary compensation if this policy goes through. Don't forget lawsuits from CAIR and other organizations. It was wrong when we did it to the Japanese, it's wrong now.

You guys are crazy. Expect outrage from the American Muslim community and their cry for monetary compensation if this policy goes through. Don't forget lawsuits from CAIR and other organizations. It was wrong when we did it to the Japanese, it's wrong now.

This policy isn't going to go thru, it was just a poll, not any new policy.

You guys are crazy. Expect outrage from the American Muslim community and their cry for monetary compensation if this policy goes through. Don't forget lawsuits from CAIR and other organizations. It was wrong when we did it to the Japanese, it's wrong now.

Now if Christians or Jews were responsible for homicidal attacks on the USA they would be tormented with guilt that members of their religion of peace had brought shame on the whole religion. They would do what they could to see that the guilty ones were arrested and the criminal elements removed from their peaceful religion.

But, here we have a Muslim who is a member of the gentile sex and she doesn’t back up an inch. It is attack and attack and never show guilt because we are doing Gods work.

OR- "Blah blah blah, bullshit assuptions and accusations...blah."
who is a member of the gentile sex fruedian slip...

assuptions

Another Freudian slip? Can't even spell the Father of Psychoanalysis name correctly?

But, here we have a Muslim who is a member of the gentile sex and she doesn’t back up an inch. It is attack and attack and never show guilt because we are doing Gods work.

What are you talking about? I'm not a she...

This policy isn't going to go thru, it was just a poll, not any new policy.

I was just playing devil's advocate. If this became an American policy, you will see a backlash from the Muslim community. There is no need to single them out even more.

During war, and make no mistake about it, we are at war.
OK, but just a question: When was the war declared? Like that to Japan, Germany, and Italy over 60 years ago, to my knowledge that was the last time US declared war.
I know there's several people who love wars, especially away from home, when it doesn't hurt their civilians, and it's OK for them to hurt some other country's civilians.

Now if you mean that new cliché "War on terror"...

I don't care if this world is falling apart, why would you give up your Constitutional rights? That's idiotic.

I don't think I would support an id card, but I would support profiling.

I would say this is a military action, not war.

This isn't a formally declared war.

I don't care if this world is falling apart, why would you give up your Constitutional rights? That's idiotic.

Yet many millions of people on the Right, alwaysRight, were perfectly willing to give up their Constitutional rights, when Bush wanted warrantless wiretaps.

You still remember that!? ;)

Oh, and I don't want to treat FOREIGN Muslims as "less than people"; I just want to secure our country from future attacks. Is that so wrong?
You want to secure this country because it is so great (IE gives people freedoms) However taking away what makes this country great to "protect it" defeats the purpose.

That's a good question.

I have difficulty with the idea of selectively applying rules for certain US citizens to follow, but I also struggle with the realization that many of these people (the US citizens who happen to be practicing Muslims) seem to place their allegiance to Muslim nations abroad with no regard for the U.S. I mean, what is it to be an American if our only basis for comparison lies in watching a bunch of foreigners take advantage of our generosity? My point is these people aren't here to embrace the United States; they're here to exploit it. America no longer represents an "idea"; it's been reduced to a fucking grab bag for non-U.S. citizens. For example, look at the number of illegals in California. Here, and for whatever reason, these people are actually PROUD to call themselves Mexican :@@: - they refer to us as "invaders", they fly their flag on OUR soil, and if not to add insult to injury, their entitlement mentality is second to none. The funny thing is, when you think about it, they're no different than any other foreigner vacationing in a country they despise. If we can assume (with a fair degree of accuracy, I might add) that they're motivated by the money they can make here (Mexican, Muslim, and the like), then why should we care if anyone is offended by something as trivial as being forced to carry a federally supplied ID card? In short, screw 'em. If they don't like it, then they can leave. They don't consider America their "real" home anyway.Would you have a Muslim who was born and brought up in the US and has complete allegience to the US carry this ID? You're making a broad generalization that doesn't include a large portion of American Muslims and forming your opinion based on that generalization. Regardless of that, you're suggesting that rights should be selectively afforded to people based on what they think or believe; I don't think I have to explain what's wrong with that.

And those of you who are so willing to sacrifice your freedom for security and are under the age of 40 - the military is currently hiring.

Unless, of course, it's not your own freedom you're willing to sacrifice.

You want to secure this country because it is so great (IE gives people freedoms) However taking away what makes this country great to "protect it" defeats the purpose.

Exactly right! And what's more people will give up freedoms for a risk to the average american that is practically zero risk. You have more chance being struck by a meteor than being a victim of terrorism, yet I don't see us building a force field over the US.

You have more chance being struck by a meteor than being a victim of terrorism, yet I don't see us building a force field over the US.
Didn't Reagan already try that?

Didn't Reagan already try that?

No, his hair was like that because of too much hair gel.

Would you have a Muslim who was born and brought up in the US and has complete allegience to the US carry this ID?
I've yet to meet any recent day foreigner that has complete allegiance to the U.S. Notice where "American" fits into the whole concept of hyphenation; for example, take "Palestinian-American". Case in point. That aside, why is being made to carry an extra ID such a hassle? I mean, seriously - what's the real issue here? It's not like we're sticking them in an internment camp, and they're not being forced to "give up any freedoms", so I fail to understand what the real problem is with checking up on a group of people that are 500 times more likely to blow shit up than we are. I'm of the opinion that if they're offended by such a notion, then they can leave. If they've got nothing to hide, then they've got nothing to worry about. If they're too stupid or selfish to understand why we'd institute such a plan, then bye-bye. They're not worth our time.

Notice where "American" fits into the whole concept of hyphenation; for example, take "Palestinian-American". .

For some crazy reason I think that refers to me. No matter how you put it Prae, I'm still a Palestinian American, whether you agree with it or not. :thumbs:

For some crazy reason I think that refers to me. No matter how you put it Prae, I'm still a Palestinian American, whether you agree with it or not. :thumbs:
No - it was just an example.

That aside, thanks for validating my point.

Oh, and give this kid a card.

No - it was just an example.

That aside, thanks for validating my point.

Oh, and give this kid a card.

Just so long you recieve a card as well. I'd be happy to take one.

I don't hyphenate my nationalities, fucker. I actually call myself an American, and I love my country, so the only thing I'd do with an extra ID is stick it (along with my foot) up some Muslim ass.

I don't hyphenate my nationalities, fucker. I actually call myself an American, and I love my country, so the only thing I'd do with an extra ID is stick it (along with my foot) up some Muslim ass.

So I have to pick the one I want to be? ANd I'm sure many Muslims would want to do the exact samething to you.

1. That aside, why is being made to carry an extra ID such a hassle? I mean, seriously - what's the real issue here? It's not like we're sticking them in an internment camp, and they're not being forced to "give up any freedoms",
2. so I fail to understand what the real problem is with checking up on a group of people that are 500 times more likely to blow shit up than we are.
3. I'm of the opinion that if they're offended by such a notion, then they can leave. If they've got nothing to hide, then they've got nothing to worry about. If they're too stupid or selfish to understand why we'd institute such a plan, then bye-bye. They're not worth our time.
1. the right to walk around without ID, equal protection, innocent till proven guilty. internment camps?...not yet. although many busheviks were calling for them.
2. Bullshit. There been planty of non-arab terrorists. You're a fool to be swept up in the latest fad of scapegoating.
3. "love it or leave it" = stupid anti-freedom fallacy. If you got nothing to hide then why not let the cops put a camera in your house?

Many of us carry more than a few things upon our person identifying ourselves now. WTF. We drive, conduct our business more and more with plastic for every transaction. When & if one is challenged by some type of "authority figure" (even if that's the clerk at the local stop & rob) for identity, we generally give it up willingly. Why should Muslims be treated any differently? They may be challenged more often, befitting the times, so what?

You are not required to carry ID around with you.

You do if you want to drive a car. You might if you want to go to the bank. These are choices made by people. You don't have to drive a car or use a bank.

No, but you might want to purchase a 6 pack and have to prove your age, you might want to rent or buy a particular piece of property and will typically need utility services and such. Those kinds of places require valid identifications. Times change. Things change.

notice where "American" fits into the whole concept of hyphenation ......
I'm still a Palestinian American.

I understand that only those who were born in another country and then become citizens of this country could say that they are Xxxxxxxx-Americans. I would be Peruvian-American when I get the US citizenship (though those who have been born in any of the countries of this continent are already Americans). Now, if I have kids (too old for that today, --- not that I can't, but don't like the idea of looking like the grandpa of my children) who are born in the US, they are Americans without any hyphen. And I think that all this hyphen thing started when those belonging to the black race and nationals of the US didn't want to be called "blacks" anymore, and invented the African-American thing (with the hyphen), unless this has been used long before they adopted it.
I have no knowledge of this sort of duality in any other country. In mine, those born in Peru of foreign parents are called Peruvians and nothing else, probably they can also have a passport from the country of the parents, but still for Peruvian law, they are "Peruvians", it should be the same here, and I don't understand why people want to have this dual name for their nationality.

I've yet to meet any recent day foreigner that has complete allegiance to the U.S.You either haven't met enough "foreigners," or you have a distorted view of them. The fact that you would consider someone born in the US to be a "foreigner" suggests that it's the latter.

Notice where "American" fits into the whole concept of hyphenation; for example, take "Palestinian-American". Case in point. Most of the time, hyphenations are used to describe a person's ethnicity, not his national allegiance.

That aside, why is being made to carry an extra ID such a hassle? I mean, seriously - what's the real issue here? It's not like we're sticking them in an internment camp, and they're not being forced to "give up any freedoms",Adding to 500lbguerilla's reply, it would also be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Goog - were you born in America?

If you were born here then you are American, you can drop the Palestinian-American moniker - there is no such thing unless you were born in Palestine and then moved to the US and obtained citizenship here while retaining Palestinian citizenship. Unless you also hold Palestinian citizenship you are American with Palestinian heritage, but you 'aint Palestinian-American.

What would happen to American Muslim citizens who don't identify as Muslim on whatever little form the government will require to identify Muslims? Will the government create a special law enforcement agency to ensure the Muslims are properly discriminated against, or will we just have the INS handle it and deport anyone who we believe are Muslim but did not identify as such? Even if the person was born in America, we can deport them to whatever country their parents (or grandparents) were from, right?

What happens if a Muslim wants to change his religion? Is he "branded for life"? Does he have to fill out a form to have his Muslim status revoked? Does he have to prove his new faith to the state in any way, such as by eating pork? If he refuses to eat pork, is his request to have his status revoked denied?

What about immigrants from a Middle Eastern country? Are they automatically assumed Muslim unless proven guilty, so to speak? Do we have to test their faiths, too, or can we just test those not claiming to be Muslim? If this is an extra ID, would anyone carry it? If it replaced, say, state-issued driver licenses, would having one preclude someone from holding a position in the government? These are important questions regarding this ID card that would need to be thought out. I think some of the implications are pretty obvious here, too.

Borg brings up many good points.

In summary the whole notion that one segment of society would be forced to carry special id's is crazy, especially to mitigate a risk that is close to zero, especially when it comes to actual US citizens.

So I have to pick the one I want to be?
Yeah, that's usually the way it works.
ANd I'm sure many Muslims would want to do the exact samething to you.
I'm sure they would - I'm not a Muslim. And from what I can tell, they're far more violent than I could ever be.

Kind of a double whammy there, ay??? It's just a good thing I didn't draw any pictures of Muhammad, because if I had, I could most certainly expect to be disemboweled, burned, and then pissed on by devout Muslims everywhere.

I understand that only those who were born in another country and then become citizens of this country could say that they are Xxxxxxxx-Americans. I would be Peruvian-American when I get the US citizenship (though those who have been born in any of the countries of this continent are already Americans). Now, if I have kids (too old for that today, --- not that I can't, but don't like the idea of looking like the grandpa of my children) who are born in the US, they are Americans without any hyphen. And I think that all this hyphen thing started when those belonging to the black race and nationals of the US didn't want to be called "blacks" anymore, and invented the African-American thing (with the hyphen), unless this has been used long before they adopted it.
I have no knowledge of this sort of duality in any other country. In mine, those born in Peru of foreign parents are called Peruvians and nothing else, probably they can also have a passport from the country of the parents, but still for Peruvian law, they are "Peruvians", it should be the same here, and I don't understand why people want to have this dual name for their nationality.
Ah....good post....Cromagnon. :eek:

You either haven't met enough "foreigners," or you have a distorted view of them. The fact that you would consider someone born in the US to be a "foreigner" suggests that it's the latter.
Nonsense.

I don't have a distorted view of foreigners at all. In short, 95% of them (and that's probably being very generous) don't have any allegiance to this country, and I think (to a greater or lesser degree) it's fairly obvious. I don't believe they view America as their true "home", and the current crop of foreigners here actually make it a point to FORCE the issue of hyphenating their nationalities so future generations won't forget where they "really" come from (like in some way, a well-fed 10 year old really misses a fun-filled life of working the bean fields in Nicaragua). My point is simple; if you want to raise a Mexican, then go to Mexico. If you want to raise an African, then go to Africa. If you want to raise a Chinaman, then go to China. If you want to raise an American, then shut the fuck up, and raise an AMERICAN. The fact of the matter is they don't do that, and you can't argue to the contrary. As a nation, we've been reduced to a welcome mat for the needy, and until that changes, nothing else matters – end of story.
Most of the time, hyphenations are used to describe a person's ethnicity, not his national allegiance.
Do you really think that's the intent behind it? Don't get me wrong, I know the ubiquitous "hyphen" can be used as an expedient way to get "Juan" into college (not to mention, furnish him with a job, a loan, a house, or, if he's a business owner competing in the public sector, minority contracts), but when it really comes down to it, I think we're splitting hairs by ignoring the obvious. It all boils down to them being given Carte blanche to exploit this country in whatever way possible while we're stuck sucking hind tit. They're actually being REWARDED for calling themselves something other than just American.

You know, come to think of it, I don't think I'd give up the hyphen either....

This brings me full circle, so I'd like to ask the question again: what is it to be an American anymore, and how cheap do we want to make it?

Yet many millions of people on the Right, alwaysRight, were perfectly willing to give up their Constitutional rights, when Bush wanted warrantless wiretaps.

I completely agree. I have been against these wiretaps for so long. Yes I may be on the right, but my Constitutional rights come above everything.

I'm not stupid. I won't give up my rights.

Yeah, that's usually the way it works.

Doesn't chage a thing IMO. I'm still a Palestinian American. Whether you agree or not.

I'm sure they would - I'm not a Muslim.

i had a strange feeling you weren't muslim.

Kind of a double whammy there, ay??? It just a good thing I didn't draw any pictures of Muhammad, because if I had, I could most certainly expect to be disemboweled, burned, and then pissed on by devout Muslims everywhere.

Good thing you didn't. Who knows what would have happened.

Doesn't chage a thing IMO. I'm still a Palestinian American. Whether you agree or not.
You're no American, my friend. You're a guest on a permanent visa.
Good thing you didn't. Who knows what would have happened.
Boy, doesn't it just make your nipples rock hard when you think of killing infidels for drawing cartoons of your peaceful profit, Muhammad??? There's nothing sexier than a chick dressed like a penguin calling for the death of cartoonist.

Doesn't chage a thing IMO. I'm still a Palestinian American. Whether you agree or not.


What passports do you hold? Sorry - but there is no such thing as a "palestinian American" unless you hold 2 passports.

I'm from England, I live in the US. I'm not an American, I'm English.

You're no American, my friend. You're a guest on a permanent visa.[\QUOTE]

I guess they are changing the defintion of what an American is. Now I have to update my dictionary.

[quote]Boy, doesn't it just make your nipples rock hard when you think of killing infidels for drawing cartoons of your peaceful profit, Muhammad??? There's nothing sexier than a chick dressed like a penguin calling for the death of cartoonist.

Speak for yourself. Who's dressing like a penguin?

What passports do you hold? Sorry - but there is no such thing as a "palestinian American" unless you hold 2 passports.



Of course there is Drew. I'm one. I'm Palestinian and I'm American.

Nonsense.

I don't have a distorted view of foreigners at all. In short, 95% of them (and that's probably being very generous) don't have any allegiance to this country, and I think (to a greater or lesser degree) it's fairly obvious. I don't believe they view America as their true "home", and the current crop of foreigners here actually make it a point to FORCE the issue of hyphenating their nationalities so future generations won't forget where they "really" come from (like in some way, a well-fed 10 year old really misses a fun-filled life of working the bean fields in Nicaragua). My point is simple; if you want to raise a Mexican, then go to Mexico. If you want to raise an African, then go to Africa. If you want to raise a Chinaman, then go to China. If you want to raise an American, then shut the fuck up, and raise an AMERICAN. The fact of the matter is they don't do that, and you can't argue to the contrary.Actually, I can argue to the contrary. My parents immigrated to the US and raised two AMERICANS, and also become AMERICANS themselves. Sure, they still have ties to the country they were born in, but their allegiance lies with the country they adopted as their home. And looking at several other people I know, I can tell you that they're not unique.

This brings me full circle, so I'd like to ask the question again: what is it to be an American anymore, and how cheap do we want to make it?I'm curious to hear your answer to that question. What do you makes someone an American?

I guess they are changing the defintion of what an American is. Now I have to update my dictionary.
Correction, my dirty little buddy, YOU people have changed the definition, not us.

Correction, my dirty little buddy, YOU people have changed the definition, not us.


True, us Americans change the definition of everything.

What would happen to American Muslim citizens who don't identify as Muslim on whatever little form the government will require to identify Muslims? Will the government create a special law enforcement agency to ensure the Muslims are properly discriminated against, or will we just have the INS handle it and deport anyone who we believe are Muslim but did not identify as such? Even if the person was born in America, we can deport them to whatever country their parents (or grandparents) were from, right?

What happens if a Muslim wants to change his religion? Is he "branded for life"? Does he have to fill out a form to have his Muslim status revoked? Does he have to prove his new faith to the state in any way, such as by eating pork? If he refuses to eat pork, is his request to have his status revoked denied?

What about immigrants from a Middle Eastern country? Are they automatically assumed Muslim unless proven guilty, so to speak? Do we have to test their faiths, too, or can we just test those not claiming to be Muslim? If this is an extra ID, would anyone carry it? If it replaced, say, state-issued driver licenses, would having one preclude someone from holding a position in the government? These are important questions regarding this ID card that would need to be thought out. I think some of the implications are pretty obvious here, too.

I would like to see someone address these issues - these are good questions and they are being ignored

"I would like to see someone address these issues - these are good questions and they are being ignored"

Nobody's stopping you.

For my part, I don't think a special ID for Muslims is necessary. I also don't have any trouble with everyone carrying ID from some officially designated agency (state driver's license/ID card), one that cannot be readily counterfeited, and is of high quality. As noted in an earlier post, most of us carry identification daily.

True, us Americans change the definition of everything.
Don't you mean "Palestinian-Americans"?

Don't you mean "Palestinian-Americans"?

No, I mean Americans change the definition of everything.

Of course there is Drew. I'm one. I'm Palestinian and I'm American.

But you still have no answered the question.

HOW MANY PASSPORTS DO YOU HOLD ?

Unless you have 2 passports - you are either an American or a Palestinian, but you are not both. That'd be like all the Irish-Americans saying they were Irish and also American. They are all American and the Irish-American nametag is just to talk of heritage - it doesn't mean they are actually Irish.

What is their purpose for coming to America?I mean their true purpose?Just like the illegals>they want to come here & bring their customs with them & expect us to adopt to their ideals.The Mexicans & some Americans,too,were waving Mexican flags in our streets not too long ago.Legals who want to come here & obey our laws,speak our language,& better themselves---OK! The rest should be kept the hell out,by any means we have at out disposal.

But you still have no answered the question.

HOW MANY PASSPORTS DO YOU HOLD ?

Unless you have 2 passports - you are either an American or a Palestinian, but you are not both. That'd be like all the Irish-Americans saying they were Irish and also American. They are all American and the Irish-American nametag is just to talk of heritage - it doesn't mean they are actually Irish.



That is sorta ironic. He's Irish but then he's not Irish. Is there anything wrong with the statement Arab American? I hold an American passport and I am of Palestinian descent. I've lived in Palestine for a few years. And I still consider myself both Palestinian and American whether you guys agree or not.