Trump's Ban

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:31 pm

I guess Ringo thinks (almost) three days is enough time before getting giddy about the attack.

By the way Ringo, Trump's muslim ban wouldn't have done a thing to prevent this since the attacker was British. But keep celebrating.

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:33 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Looks like he was trying to protect the usa from terrorism after all. Given the bomber of the Manchester area came in and had ties and training in Libya. Perhaps you were wrong

Maybe Trump would be better off not selling arms to the Saudis , who then pass them on to ISIS

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:36 pm

LaLigaClaret wrote:Oh dear oh dear I see the Board's biggest and most persistent wind-up merchant Irritating Turtle is at his pedantic semantics again. Time to completely obliterate his incoherent ramblings yet again. So lets get to the facts.

Donald Trump is US President and he has the right to sign Executive Orders.
The USA's border control policy is a matter for the USA and not whinging, tree hugging vegan happy clappy moronic half wits who still think the earth is flat.
The moratorium is not a ban.
The moratorium is temporary.
The moratorium is not a ban on muslim people as clearly demonstrated by the fact that muslim people from loads of other countries can freely enter the USA.
Britons and Britons with duel passports are not affected.
The moratorium is to increase security vetting of people trying to enter the USA from countries identified as having endemic terrorism.
The moratorium was actually mirroring Obama's law passed in 2015 which identified precisely the same 7 countries when Obama told his country to prevent by slowing down and delaying people from those countries from entering the USA.
President Obama previously banned all entrants from Iran.
The previous 5 US Presidents ALL had bans on certain countries stopping people from specific countries to the US.
Only 109 people questioned since the moratorium of those only 12 detained but ALL since allowed in.
All people entering the US are subject to homeland security and the moratorium is only an extension of this,
Britain has banned people from entering the UK so we have done similar things.
Donald Trump was voted in and everyone knew he was going to do this.

This is all part of an orchestrated campaign but the sad losers who can't accept they lost.

GAME. SET and MATCH

Oh and to the all Corbynista's out there come 2020 the Labour Party will be destroyed, not for one election but permanently. That pillock would if Putin was going to invade not alert our troops to protect you but instead invite him for tea and cakes to discuss how much pollution the tanks would cause. I have voted Labour all my life but they are completely unelectable and a total disgrace. I really hope they lose all their MP's what a lame brained moron he is.

One of the threads best posts, with the benefits of hindsight

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:38 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Err... no.

So?

Trump? Yes.

On its own, not much. It'd be dumb, but whatever. Unfortunately this isn't on it's own because he's previously promised to ban Muslims from entering the US simply because they're Muslims. I, and millions of others, feel that we can see through what we believe is a bullshit rationale to ban whole nations of people, none of whom have committed any terrorist killings in the United States since at least before 9/11, purely because they are majority Muslim countries. I also don't for one second believe 90 days will be the end of it, or that only these 7 nationalities will see such travel bans. I think i've been clear about this a few times now.

Well, no. Not really. A religious test to get into America is unconstitutional.

Yes. Absolutely. Let everyone in. That's literally the only possible alternative.

That's his own stupid fault for making such dumb-as-**** promises.

Again, that's his stupid fault.

The idea that he's going to protect Muslim Americans is a fanciful one. This is someone who has defended his own violent supporters by calling them "very passionate" when confronted with the violence they're committing against others.

For this you can go **** yourself. When have i ever called you stupid?

Given the link with Libya. You were wrong

USC · Post by **USC** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:39 pm

Ringo, do you realize that if we had the equivalent of Trump's proposed ban in this country, it would not have prevented Abadi traveling to and from Libia?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:42 pm

Don't tell him stuff like that, he's on a roll.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:46 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Given the link with Libya. You were wrong

Born in Manchester. /story

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:46 pm

morpheus2 wrote:Another racist Islamophobe here on twitter supporting Fart's ban, the problem here is this guy has influence, with 1.5 million followers on his official twitter account.

http://www.albawaba.com/loop/dubai%E2%8 ... %99-930942

Somebody somewhere in the blogosphere stated that "The United Arab Emirates made is clear from the beginning that they would not accept refugees due to fear of political and religious unrest" ......Not sure how true this is, but if true I hope the leader of the UAE gets the same response from our SJWs if he tries for a state visit here.

"Another racist Islamophobe here on twitter supporting Fart's ban,"

Would it now be racist and islamaphobic to impose a 90 day ban on travel from Libya. Given the sinister connections involved in the tragedy at the Arena?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:49 pm

biggles wrote:he's not banning muslims; he's banning potential terrorists! most muslims are not terrorists but perhaps most terrorists are muslims.

Nail hit firmly on the head.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:49 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:"Another racist Islamophobe here on twitter supporting Fart's ban,"

Would it now be racist and islamaphobic to impose a 90 day ban on travel from Libya. Given the sinister connections involved in the tragedy at the Arena?

Well, he was from Manchester so maybe we should impost a 90 day ban on travel from Manchester. Given the sinister connections involved in the tragedy at the Arena.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:51 pm

Please just let this thread die

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:53 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're right, it is beyond his powers because they have a constitution that superceeds the powers of all three branches of government.

But, maybe this kid isn't a 1 year old but Trump tried to ban a 5 year old, and here's his idiot trying to explain why it's ridiculous to say that someone isn't a security threat because of his age, which means if he was 1 year old then he could also be a security threat.

But carry on trying to defend Trump.

Do you still think trumps ban was wrong?

Given the Libyan connection, you are.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:56 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights. If a terrorist has no human rights then neither do you. You can't pick and choose who has inalienable rights and who doesn't, it's kind of self-explanatory why that's the case.

There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights.

There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights.

There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights.

Turtles Head would you be prepared to say the above statement to the families of those who lost their life at the Manchester Arena?

Would you say -

"There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights. "

You are one sick ********

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:01 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is from the first link, and I think it is remarkable. It shows that we're winning the ideological war against terrorism. Just look at how most of these figures showing support for suicide bombing have shrunk over the years. That's not to say any support is OK.

There's still plenty to be concerned with but it's important to not blind ourselves to the fact that we're making huge progress when it comes to convincing people that terrorism, particularly suicide bombings, is unacceptable.

"fact that we're making huge progress when it comes to convincing people that terrorism, particularly suicide bombings, is unacceptable"

Tragically, your "FACT" wasn't anything of the sort was it Turtles Head?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:02 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Do you still think trumps ban was wrong?

Given the Libyan connection, you are.

How am I wrong? Do you think he'd have gone to Libya in the first place if he knew he couldn't get back? He was already radicalised by the end of April when he went, so how would things be any different with your Muslim ban?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:03 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:"fact that we're making huge progress when it comes to convincing people that terrorism, particularly suicide bombings, is unacceptable"

Tragically, your "FACT" wasn't anything of the sort was it Turtles Head?

So you're saying that this one terrorist is representative of the Muslim world? And you wonder why no one respects your opinions.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:06 pm

"There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights."

Turtles Head January 2017.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:09 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Well, he was from Manchester so maybe we should impost a 90 day ban on travel from Manchester. Given the sinister connections involved in the tragedy at the Arena.

He travelled in from Libya after training. You opposed a travel ban from that country. You are wrong, sick and utterly utterly stupid .

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:11 pm

There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights.- Turtles Head January 2017

Really!!!!!!!!?

You're happy for the Arena to repeated over and over and over again!!

Sick sick sick sick sick

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:11 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights.

There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights.

There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights.

Turtles Head would you be prepared to say the above statement to the families of those who lost their life at the Manchester Arena?

Would you say -

"There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights. "

You are one sick ********

I stand by that, and if the terrorists attack us again i'll stand by it then too.

I have another quote for you to get outraged about, if you really want it. In response to someone posting their fear that these attacks will continue i posted this.

Of course there are, but that's the price we pay for being a liberal, pluralist society against their regressive, totalitarian ideology.
If we allow them to change us we become compliant, and I would hope that we wouldn't want to be compliant with regards to these "people".

I'd rather that they attack us for being different to them, than stop attacking us because we're alike.

And guess what, Ringo. I stand by that too.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:16 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights.- Turtles Head January 2017

Really!!!!!!!!?

You're happy for the Arena to repeated over and over and over again!!

Sick sick sick sick sick

Ringo, the problem comes, not with human rights laws themselves, but when they get abused.

For example, how can it be right that local councils can use anti terror laws to spy on parents to make sure they send their kids to the correct schools. Would you be happy living in a society where you can be prosecuted under those anti-terror laws for sending your children to a better school?

That's why we have to be careful how they are used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ermen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:21 pm

Spijed wrote:Ringo, the problem comes, not with human rights laws themselves, but when they get abused.

For example, how can it be right that local councils can use anti terror laws to spy on parents to make sure they send their kids to the correct schools. Would you be happy living in a society where you can be prosecuted under those anti-terror laws for sending your children to a better school?

That's why we have to be careful how they are used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ermen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't want to breath the same air as somebody who and I quote "There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights."

Think about it "no limit of terrorist atrocities "

Wrong wrong wrong

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:26 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I don't want to breath the same air as somebody who and I quote "There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights."

Think about it "no limit of terrorist atrocities "

Wrong wrong wrong

What's the point in trying to debate with you when you act like an idiot?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:37 pm

I'm an idiot!? You sound like somebody else mate

Good evening.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 7:46 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I don't want to breathe the same air as somebody who said and I quote "There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights."

Think about it "no limit of terrorist atrocities "

Wrong wrong wrong

In your rage you forgot a word. I've added it for you.

Edit: oh, and you forgot that breath and breathe are two different words.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Thu May 25, 2017 8:27 pm

Why is it not being understood that any Trump-type ban would not have prevented this?

The murderer was born in England and is therefore a citizen. Citizens can't be banned, even under Trump, unless you single out Muslims, and you can't do that. I know, let's round up 10% of the UK population and put them in internment camps. It'll provide work for the Eastern European social security spongers

Or is the workaround to castrate anyone from Libya residing in Britain to be castrated so they can't produce Muslim citizens?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu May 25, 2017 9:13 pm

NRC wrote:Why is it not being understood that any Trump-type ban would not have prevented this?

I think it's only Ringo who doesn't understand this, to be fair. It just seems like more people because he's been spamming this thread.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 9:15 pm

Greenmile wrote:I think it's only Ringo who doesn't understand this, to be fair. It just seems like more people because he's been spamming this thread.

It's literally been laugh-out-loud funny watching him meltdown the way he has.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Thu May 25, 2017 9:33 pm

Nobody like my radical solution then?

USC · Post by **USC** » Thu May 25, 2017 9:40 pm

NRC wrote:Nobody like my radical solution then?

I imagine Ringo does.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 9:45 pm

USC wrote:I imagine Ringo does.

Only if the 10% is made up entirely of Muslims, Jews and non-whites, in that order of preference.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Thu May 25, 2017 9:47 pm

From Ringo.
"I don't want to breath the same air as somebody who and I quote "There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights."

Excellent news, **** off and die if it's all too much for you. Complete bellend.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu May 25, 2017 11:11 pm

Trump's ban foiled again. Another Federal court has upheld a block on his ban.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/federal- ... cnews.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:13 am

But it was so urgent, remember?

fidelcastro · Post by **fidelcastro** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:37 am

^^^^^ Is it just me, or does he look like a fat Charlie Austin?

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:38 am

We need a Donald Trump running our country, a man with a backbone and putting his ideas into place. He isn't prepared to sit on his arse and rest, we will end up with another lazy yes man though. "Yes men" are very common in the UK, certainly a breeding problem. I think "Yes men" should be banned from having more than one child to try and stop polluting the country with unambitious lazy sheep who settle for anything.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:42 am

An interesting statistic was recently revealed.... 90% of men who post on a football forum are "Yes men". Quite an interesting statistic and scarily accurate.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:49 am

I often wonder what makes a "yes man", the only conclusion I have is that they feel insignificant to the female sex. Quite often a "yes man" will be in a relationship with a women and live in fear. I believe the problem starts at home, bossy women are certainly a pain to deal with and likely a big factor in many men becoming "yes men".

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:29 am

KRBFC wrote:We need a Donald Trump running our country, a man with a backbone and putting his ideas into place. He isn't prepared to sit on his arse and rest, we will end up with another lazy yes man though. "Yes men" are very common in the UK, certainly a breeding problem. I think "Yes men" should be banned from having more than one child to try and stop polluting the country with unambitious lazy sheep who settle for anything.

How many golf trips already? 26, 27? But he's not lazy you say.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:31 am

KRBFC wrote:I often wonder what makes a "yes man", the only conclusion I have is that they feel insignificant to the female sex. Quite often a "yes man" will be in a relationship with a women and live in fear. I believe the problem starts at home, bossy women are certainly a pain to deal with and likely a big factor in many men becoming "yes men".

You're single and still live at home aren't you?