Recent content by 351Cleveland

The whole discussion is premature. Way too many people think to tolerate, to accept, and to embrace are all the same thing. They aren't. Take a problem we are having in our neighborhood with a development tying into our streets (we don't want it, too much traffic). We lost at the planning...

Fair enough. I read your statement as a extension of the post you were replying to. Since you didn't refute the "Palestinians are attaching Israel" portions of the post, I took it to mean you conceded the point. Point stands though. Palestinians are routinely the aggressors in these...

Well, that is certainly a worthy point. How about instead of calling it racism, we call it bigotry? Point being, a lot of people are making an assumption about the Muslim response. That assumption is that they will be violent. I want to know if they would make that same assumption about any...

So your rebuttal is basically that the Israelis WANT to butcher the Palestinians the same way that the Palestinians WANT to butcher the Israelis... but that the Israelis are smart enough not to? Wow... between that and the whole concept of Muslims defaulting to violence, people around here...

No... I based my "President Clinton Supported it" on an article I read here: http://time.com/5049019/jerusalem-embassy-history/ So that is what I based that statement on. Oh and President Clinton appears to be talking about of both side of his face on that one. President Trump, for all of...

So you would expect the same reaction from say... Jews? Would the Jewish people rise up violently in similar circumstances?

Why would it erupt into violence? Are Muslims not capable of controlling their passions? If you were saying that (and I don't know that you are), then that would be blatantly racist to suggest Muslims have so little self control or intelligence as to be provoked to violence by what? So far...

So no action is an action. So the opposite of an action is... an action? It isn't like there is a pre-printed form with check boxes and a list of reasons for him to choose from and sign. There was nothing for him to sign. He enacted a properly passed law over 20 years after it was passed...

Oh I am sorry. Yes, despite passing both houses of Congress in 1995 by overwhelming margins, President Clinton ALLOWED the bill to become law. He didn't actually sign it, but he didn't veto it either (again, massively overwhelming majorities in both chambers). I read both that Clinton had...

However, President Trump took no action. This law was passed and signed over 20 years ago... by President Clinton. So at the end of the day, maybe you mean President Clinton's actions were stupid?

Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. If Muslims respond violently, that is because they chose to do so. Frankly, accepting or expecting violence from Muslims is a bit racist. You don't think Muslims have the ability to keep their passions in check? Why would anyone...

Wow... do any of you actually bother to look into the issues? Without speaking to the regulation's merits, it was never implemented, or Congress would not have been able to touch it. Congressional Review Act. Look it up. The point is, that the streams and rivers you are bemoaning are no...

He never said he wasn't allowed to say it, he said he didn't care what he had to say. There is a huge difference. Pope can say it all he wants... it doesn't mean people have to listen.

At the end of the day, they only do less crime if you don't include the crime of them being here illegally. If you include that, then there is a lot more crime to speak of. Regardless, it isn't a debate of local LEO's knocking on doors, rounding up illegals. It is a matter of honoring a...

I think you would be very hard-pressed to present this as "child abuse." But by all means, give it a go.