Imam forced to resign for agreeing with Trump....

[_The CCC]

Wikipedia is all over the place when it concerns Liberalism and Conservatism etc.

For example they mix modern liberalism with classical liberalism.
Thus, Wiki's definition of Liberalism is not modern liberalsm as believed and practiced.

Modern liberalism is Socialist/Communist/Marxist/Fascist based..... NOT Classical Liberlism which is based in "Individual" Freedom, Civil Rights, Capitalism, etc.
Classical Liberalism is Conservative/Libertarian based... Leftists are not Libertarians, and they also don't believe in Free Markets.

Key root "Liber".....

Again, you forget that years ago in the early 20th Century Progressives took over the word "liberal" to try to make themselves not seem progressive because progressive became a bad word, just like today, liberal is a bad word so they are trying to be Progressives again.

Liberals are always manipulating words for their means.
It's just like Global Warming..... You all couldn't prove global warming very well, so you changed it to Climate Change as a catch all so you can call any normal weather activity as the "end of the world".
FYI, this is proven in hacked/reveled emails from your quack lying scientists.

Or another example, instead of "Union" being the generic word, liberals/gays have made "Marriage" a generic word instead of the specific definition it had.
Or way in the past, "gay" used to mean happy, now it only describes homosexuals.

You're an idiot. Which by the way means lacking judgement.

Liberal by every definition is what wiki say's it is.

Just like an idiot conservative to conflate polar opposites. Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.
SEE http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ ... atism.html

Progressive and Liberal have been used interchangeably for a long time now. Conservatives used to be for conservation. Not so much now-a-days. Drill Baby Drill.
by the way President Obama has opened up more offshore oil fields to exploration than any other President. More Fracking for Natural Gas has been done under his Presidency than any other.

Yes Liberals are for Free Markets. Just not the Laissez Faire type that Conservatism prefers.

You are still an idiot and now a proven liar. Global Warming and Climate Change have been used interchangeably since the 1850's and proven 1899.
SEE http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHi ... 0-1899.htm
SEE https://www.skepticalscience.com/climat ... arming.htm
Here is the FACTS about those hacked E-mails.
SEE https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climat ... hacked.htm

Marriage has many different meanings depending on context. We marry pieces of paper to form a book. Two pieces of pipe to make a run of conduit. Two or more people marry to form a company/corporation. Marriage in civil union by two or more people is well established in the Bible and LDS polygamy of the 19th Century. Whether it is legal or illegal in the US is a matter of law. Neither Liberalism or Conservatism is applicable in this context.

[_Brackite]

I know he's not "ideal".... but he's certainly far better than liberals and Obama, and he's wanting to focus on fixing the most pressing problems, immigration issues, the economy, and freedom.

Both Rubio and Jeb have better ideas on how to fix the immigration problem than Trump does.

https://jeb2016.com/border-security/?lang=en

https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/marco-r ... ity-legal/

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/11/455602129 ... itizenship

[_Some Schmo]

Is it my imagination, or is faqs actually sounding even more uptight/insane these days as he gets called out for his BS more often?

Probably just my imagination. Dude's always been a maniac.

[_ldsfaqs]

Oink oink.... wee weee...... Pretty much all your response deserves, just the usual personal attacks.

[_Res Ipsa]

If I proposed to ban Muslims until rainbows and unicorns sat atop the Capitol dome, I've used the word until, but the ban would almost assuredly be permanent. When the condition for lifting the ban is "until the government gets its s*** together, there is no reason to believe it will be lifted at all.

By the way, where exactly did Trump say "halt"?

Yet, Trump didn't say rainbows and unicorns.
Further, nobody has said the government can be perfect, but it certainly CAN be better than it is. There's all kinds of information and stats out there to back that up, which I've given before. One of many examples is how many people are on the No Fly List that shouldn't be on it, sitting Senator's, etc. I mean, that's clear incompetency.... which CAN be fixed.

Let me give some examples.
- Bad databases. They can consolidate and improve them.
- Not allow people in that have fanatical views.
- Not allow "individuals" in unless they can demonstrate a need for Asylum
- Only allow good family's in with no radical views.

Of course, being very generic and limited here, but these are the kinds of things that can be done.
The professionals out there know all this..... yet the liberal doesn't.

"Stopping" "until" something occurs means to "HALT" it.....
Again, basic english, which you all are critical of me on, yet I'm clearly the one that actually understands it, even if I don't spell it all correctly.

Stop changing the subject. No one is saying we can't improve government, least of all me. I could rattle off about a thousand more if you were actually interested. That has nothing to do with your word fetish.

If you understood basic English, you wouldn't throw such a hissy fit over use of the word "ban."

[_ldsfaqs]

My "hissy fit" wasn't over the word "ban"..... it was using it without his further statement and context, thus making it SEEM like he was saying something racist instead of something intelligent and smart.

I'm not talking about government can be improved either, I'm talking about serious problems that leave our citizens vulnerable.
I mean, if they can so f up a simple no fly list..... how the f can they be trusted to not let lot's of terrorists in???
I'm using that as an example, the experts involved with the process have addressed the problems, and things that can be done to fix them.

[_MeDotOrg]

Or way in the past, "gay" used to mean happy, now it only describes homosexuals.

So I guess this Christmas we won't be donning our gay apparel?

Consider how other words change meaning. During the McCarthy era, Cincinnati's baseball team changed their name from the "Reds" to the "Redlegs". They changed it back in 1958, presumably after the government figured out what was happening with the commies, so it was safe to be called "Reds" again.

Curiously, the term "Redlegs" was a derogatory term for Scottish and Irish indentured servants in the Caribbean. But better a sunburned indentured servant than a commie.

So 60 years later, Republican-dominated states proudly call themselves 'Red States'.

Go figure...

[_Res Ipsa]

My "hissy fit" wasn't over the word "ban"..... it was using it without his further statement and context, thus making it SEEM like he was saying something racist instead of something intelligent and smart.

I'm not talking about government can be improved either, I'm talking about serious problems that leave our citizens vulnerable.
I mean, if they can so f up a simple no fly list..... how the f can they be trusted to not let lot's of terrorists in???
I'm using that as an example, the experts involved with the process have addressed the problems, and things that can be done to fix them.

Improving things the government does includes fixing serious problems. We have lots of those that leave our citizens vulnerable. Most have nothing to do with terrorism. Trump's ban is a separate issue. We can work on fixing thing without banning people from entering the country based on their religion.

Personally, I am against prohibiting people from purchasing weapons based on any list unilaterally prepared by the executive branch and without any due process. I think it has serious constitutional problems, and with good reason.

I get the impression that you don't trust the government to do even simple things without damned them up. If so, why are you confident the government will ever figure out the whole terrorist thing so that the ban could be lifted? Or if you are confident in the government, how long does the government need to reach the point where the ban will be lifted?

[_EAllusion]

My "hissy fit" wasn't over the word "ban"..... it was using it without his further statement and context, thus making it SEEM like he was saying something racist instead of something intelligent and smart.

Why don't we ban religious people from immigrating to the country until we find out what's going on with religious people?

The issue is with Muslims, not religious people in general!

It is? So the issue is with Muslims in general? Oh, that's right. It's not. So why generalize to them? What do you call obstinate prejudice again? I think there is a word for it.

[_Brackite]

"Also, I can't remember the number, but there is actually believed to be 40 Million or something Illegals in the U.S. according to certain business records,"

NOPE!! The number is at about 12 million individuals living in this country illegally.

From the theblaze.com:

Other estimates about the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S> have been closer to 12 million, bringing that number up to $150 billion — and that’s not even considering the possibility that the 2011 cost to deport a single person has gone up over four years.


From nbcnews.com:

Now that Donald Trump has called to deport all of the undocumented immigrants living in the United States, here's the natural follow-up question: How much would that cost?

The answer: More than $100 billion -- if not $200 billion.

Back in 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble said it costs $12,500 to deport an individual undocumented immigrant.


From foxnews.com:

Trump may have mastered the art of the deal – but on the matter of mass deportation, the adage that politics is the art of the possible can’t be overlooked.

The government still is deporting thousands -- according to the latest DHS data, the government deported 438,000, 418,000 and 387,000 in 2013, 2012, and 2011 respectively -- but each case typically takes a long time to process.

Today, the average wait time for a case in the immigration court -- which can end in deportation -- is 643 days. In 2008, it was 438 days. Goldman, describing one of his own clients, a man who came to the U.S. illegally in 1992 and was brought before the court in 2010, said wait times can be much longer. It was five years before his client’s case was “administratively closed,” meaning he won’t be deported this time but his charge is still “pending.” He can be put back before a judge at any time.


As I stated earlier in this thread, Rubio and Jeb have better ideas on how to fix the immigration problem than Trump does.

https://jeb2016.com/border-security/?lang=en

https://marcorubio.com/issues-2/marco-r ... ity-legal/

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/11/455602129 ... itizenship