It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 2:30 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » GENERAL BULLSHIT SECTION » GENERAL DISCUSSION

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 9
  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Chus
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I realize it makes a nice slogan for a sign, but it would be hard to make a reasonable case that it is a religious ban when Muslims from Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't included.
What was the common theme of the countries that were banned though?


Trump doesn't have business dealings in any of those seven countries.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way
Top
 Profile  
 
pittmike
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Kirkwood wrote:
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
Picture

A bombing 4 years ago by immigrants who emigrated from none of the 7 banned countries?



The travel and immigration restrictions aren't final. More countries could be added. What it starts is the proper vetting of people coming into this country.

We don't already properly vet? Could you share what are the deficiencies in the current process?



Why is it necessary to show the deficiencies you ask for? If any leader of something wants to implement a policy with the intent of reviewing and changing something I do not think they show their proof before the review. They have an opinion that change is necessary and go about the process.

In this case where the leader is Trump and the change he wants to review and change is very unpopular. So is that why you seem stuck on that?

_________________
Elections have consequences.
Top
 Profile  
 
WaitingforRuffcorn
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
A good upstanding green card holder from Iraq
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/07/refugee-a ... s-america/


That might be the worst website ever created.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I realize it makes a nice slogan for a sign, but it would be hard to make a reasonable case that it is a religious ban when Muslims from Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't included.
What was the common theme of the countries that were banned though?



Breeding grounds for terrorists? Countries the U.S. has been bombing?
The thing is that religion is also just as in common with that.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
pittmike
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Chus wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I realize it makes a nice slogan for a sign, but it would be hard to make a reasonable case that it is a religious ban when Muslims from Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't included.
What was the common theme of the countries that were banned though?


Trump doesn't have business dealings in any of those seven countries.


He certainly sets himself up for this criticism with his vast holdings. In this case you might be right or it may be coincidental though. Over the course of his presidency I am going to assume there will be people able to make some sort of connection to his business in about any part of the world.

_________________
Elections have consequences.
Top
 Profile  
 
JORR
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80536
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I realize it makes a nice slogan for a sign, but it would be hard to make a reasonable case that it is a religious ban when Muslims from Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't included.
What was the common theme of the countries that were banned though?



Breeding grounds for terrorists? Countries the U.S. has been bombing?
The thing is that religion is also just as in common with that.


So we're back to pretending that the terrorist acts aren't in any way influenced by Islam.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.
Top
 Profile  
 
Chus
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
Chus wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I realize it makes a nice slogan for a sign, but it would be hard to make a reasonable case that it is a religious ban when Muslims from Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't included.
What was the common theme of the countries that were banned though?


Trump doesn't have business dealings in any of those seven countries.


He certainly sets himself up for this criticism with his vast holdings. In this case you might be right or it may be coincidental though. Over the course of his presidency I am going to assume there will be people able to make some sort of connection to his business in about any part of the world.


Yeah, it's probably just a coincidence.

Jimmy Carter was forced to sell his peanut farm.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way
Top
 Profile  
 
Caller Bob
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41485
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
pittmike wrote:
Chus wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I realize it makes a nice slogan for a sign, but it would be hard to make a reasonable case that it is a religious ban when Muslims from Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't included.
What was the common theme of the countries that were banned though?


Trump doesn't have business dealings in any of those seven countries.


He certainly sets himself up for this criticism with his vast holdings. In this case you might be right or it may be coincidental though. Over the course of his presidency I am going to assume there will be people able to make some sort of connection to his business in about any part of the world.


There is definitely a connection, but in the Trump administrations defense(vomits) neither Republicans or Democrats have ever demonstrated the balls to do anything that would upset that "Saudi Money Train"
Top
 Profile  
 
Kirkwood
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
pittmike wrote:
Why is it necessary to show the deficiencies you ask for? If any leader of something wants to implement a policy with the intent of reviewing and changing something I do not think they show their proof before the review. They have an opinion that change is necessary and go about the process.

In this case where the leader is Trump and the change he wants to review and change is very unpopular. So is that why you seem stuck on that?

I'd like my president and his cabinet to use logic and evidence when crafting policy. not what's in his and his goon's hearts


Last edited by Kirkwood on Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
pittmike
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I realize it makes a nice slogan for a sign, but it would be hard to make a reasonable case that it is a religious ban when Muslims from Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't included.
What was the common theme of the countries that were banned though?



Breeding grounds for terrorists? Countries the U.S. has been bombing?
The thing is that religion is also just as in common with that.



That is probably ok legally though as long as religion is not solely the reason.

That brings me back to another question I have about this area. I understand that we tend to apply our constitutional rights abroad. We like to think our government does not act poorly in its actions. Is it really true as a legal fact though that foreigners on foreign soil hold constitutional rights? I am not proposing we torture or otherwise do this but I would like to hear if is law.

_________________
Elections have consequences.
Top
 Profile  
 
Nas
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Kirkwood wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
sjboyd0137 wrote:
denisdman wrote:
I'd love to hear from people who voted for Trump and find out how they feel about all this. The guy is doing lots of the crazy stuff he said he was going to do. Is this what his voters wanted?


I think this is exactly what his target audience of the scared, white, old, xenophobic, Bible thumphing "Cafeteria Christians" wanted. They're the ones that are always afraid of the "brown people".

Fuck the idea of age limits for elected officials. There should be age limits for voters.

Yesterday CNN interviewed a group of 5-7 people who supported the ban. They did a solid job of getting white people and naturalized immigrants (Indians and Asians) who agreed with the ban.

Boggled my mind they all thought the ban was necessary for safety reasons. It's sad these people like their lives irrationally scared.

The refugee ban isn't necessarily wrong as a short term thing. It's everything else that came with it.


The half-assed way it was implemented is a fucking disaster.

But why was the refugee ban required in the first place? What was basis behind the ban? What protocols were lacking in vetting refugees under the current system? What did Trump inner circle identify as needing improved measures?


For nothing but political reasons. There was no intelligence about a attack and the 18-24 month wait is more than good enough to vet someone.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23568
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Kirkwood wrote:
But why was the refugee ban required in the first place? What was basis behind the ban?


Anwar al-Awilaki

Dahir Adan

Worldwide:

Ahmad al-Mohammad (Paris, Syrian)

Loa'i Mohammad Haj Bakr al-Saqa (Istanbul, Syrian)

M al-Hahmod (Paris, Syrian)

Mohammad Daleel (Germany, Syrian)

Taoimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly (Stockholm, Iraqi)

Rafik Yoursef (Berlin, Iraqi)
Top
 Profile  
 
Caller Bob
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41485
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Let's just be real here guys, political alliances aside, in the pure spirit of this "EO", you know damn well Saudi Arabi should be on that list. Nobody is going to deny that right?
Top
 Profile  
 
Baby McNown
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:32 am 
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
IkeSouth wrote:
this bitch goin out with a bang!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates ... ordered the Justice Department on Monday not to defend President Trump’s executive order on immigration in court.

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”


Shot across the bow from the establishment.

Quote:
Ms. Yates’s letter transforms the confirmation of Mr. Sessions as attorney general into a referendum on the immigration order. Action in the Senate could come as early as Tuesday.


She will be gone probably within 24 hours now... but this is the beginning folks. The resistance the to coup has begun.


I'm sure my statement here will be characterized by those who are still attempting to litigate the loss of Hillary Clinton in any way possible as a "defense of Donald Trump", but I have to ask if this deputy AG worked in a justice department that supported Obama as he ordered it not to enforce American laws as passed by Congress and while he signed all manner of Constitutionally questionable executive orders. We should probably consider those questions before we declare her a hero and cheer on the politicization of our legal system.

You've completely lost your marbles haven't you.


Do you really not realize how difficult it is to take any political opinion you have seriously? Listening to you is no different than listening to the DNC chairman. In fact, I think you should run.

Like I said. You have lost your marbles. You've been almost as bad as KellyAnne since the election, and you bust out Chas' victim card saying people are sore losers when they call you out on it. Calling you out on your hypocritical horse shit isn't being a partisan sheep. It's calling it down the middle.
Top
  
 
Chus
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Caller Bob wrote:
Let's just be real here guys, political alliances aside, in the pure spirit of this "EO", you know damn well Saudi Arabi should be on that list. Nobody is going to deny that right?

Yeah, but Obama.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I realize it makes a nice slogan for a sign, but it would be hard to make a reasonable case that it is a religious ban when Muslims from Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't included.
What was the common theme of the countries that were banned though?



Breeding grounds for terrorists? Countries the U.S. has been bombing?
The thing is that religion is also just as in common with that.


So we're back to pretending that the terrorist acts aren't in any way influenced by Islam.
Well, is it a religious ban or isn't it?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
pittmike
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Caller Bob wrote:
Let's just be real here guys, political alliances aside, in the pure spirit of this "EO", you know damn well Saudi Arabi should be on that list. Nobody is going to deny that right?


You are correct. If not for oil ties they would be shunned.

_________________
Elections have consequences.
Top
 Profile  
 
Hatchetman
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton wouldn't let the Hmong refugees in the USA for some mysterious reason. You know, the same Hmong that fought with us side by side in Vietnam. That's how we treat friends. Where were all the hippies then? Too brain damaged I guess. Liberal concerns of human rights only appears sporadically.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
pittmike wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I realize it makes a nice slogan for a sign, but it would be hard to make a reasonable case that it is a religious ban when Muslims from Egypt, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't included.
What was the common theme of the countries that were banned though?



Breeding grounds for terrorists? Countries the U.S. has been bombing?
The thing is that religion is also just as in common with that.



That is probably ok legally though as long as religion is not solely the reason.

That brings me back to another question I have about this area. I understand that we tend to apply our constitutional rights abroad. We like to think our government does not act poorly in its actions. Is it really true as a legal fact though that foreigners on foreign soil hold constitutional rights? I am not proposing we torture or otherwise do this but I would like to hear if is law.
I doubt you could get away with a religious ban on immigration/green cards regardless if you also have something else with it.

The green card thing is the biggest issue though.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
Kirkwood
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
But why was the refugee ban required in the first place? What was basis behind the ban?


Anwar al-Awilaki

Dahir Adan

Worldwide:

Ahmad al-Mohammad (Paris, Syrian)

Loa'i Mohammad Haj Bakr al-Saqa (Istanbul, Syrian)

M al-Hahmod (Paris, Syrian)

Mohammad Daleel (Germany, Syrian)

Taoimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly (Stockholm, Iraqi)

Rafik Yoursef (Berlin, Iraqi)

So worldwide doesn't explain the ban. They didn't filter through the current US refugee vetting process.

Anwar al-Awilaki - was born in the US

Dahir Adan - he came to the US in 1996 as a 2-year-old.
Top
 Profile  
 
Baby McNown
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:39 am 
pittmike wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
Picture

A bombing 4 years ago by immigrants who emigrated from none of the 7 banned countries?



The travel and immigration restrictions aren't final. More countries could be added. What it starts is the proper vetting of people coming into this country.

We don't already properly vet? Could you share what are the deficiencies in the current process?



Why is it necessary to show the deficiencies you ask for? If any leader of something wants to implement a policy with the intent of reviewing and changing something I do not think they show their proof before the review. They have an opinion that change is necessary and go about the process.

In this case where the leader is Trump and the change he wants to review and change is very unpopular. So is that why you seem stuck on that?

So you can't. Ok thanks.
Top
  
 
JORR
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80536
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Baby McNown wrote:
Like I said. You have lost your marbles. You've been almost as bad as KellyAnne since the election, and you bust out Chas' victim card saying people are sore losers when they call you out on it. Calling you out on your hypocritical horse shit isn't being a partisan sheep. It's calling it down the middle.


How exactly am I hypocritical? And you are butthurt about Clinton's loss and really, MANY are. We can be concerned about Trump and the things he may do over the next four years but the real threat to our system is the attempts being made to negate an American election, which is really what this stuff is all about. One way or another Trump is going to be gone in four years (maybe sooner), but these attempts at delegitimizing the election/presidency are going to be with us forever.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.
Top
 Profile  
 
Caller Bob
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41485
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Hatchetman wrote:
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton wouldn't let the Hmong refugees in the USA for some mysterious reason. You know, the same Hmong that fought with us side by side in Vietnam. That's how we treat friends. Where were all the hippies then? Too brain damaged I guess. Liberal concerns of human rights only appears sporadically.

Bill Clinton of the 90s is a moderate republican in the year 2017.
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
The green card part of it also makes it hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on any of it. That is the big problem. There is a valid argument to be made for a temporary ban on refugees. We don't owe them anything and there are other countries that should be dealing with them. When you start banning people who literally already live here it changes the discussion.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
Terry's Peeps
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Kirkwood wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
But why was the refugee ban required in the first place? What was basis behind the ban?


Anwar al-Awilaki

Dahir Adan

Worldwide:

Ahmad al-Mohammad (Paris, Syrian)

Loa'i Mohammad Haj Bakr al-Saqa (Istanbul, Syrian)

M al-Hahmod (Paris, Syrian)

Mohammad Daleel (Germany, Syrian)

Taoimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly (Stockholm, Iraqi)

Rafik Yoursef (Berlin, Iraqi)

So worldwide doesn't explain the ban. They didn't filter through the current US refugee vetting process.

Anwar al-Awilaki - was born in the US

Dahir Adan - he came to the US in 1996 as a 2-year-old.


And if he wasn't allowed here as a kid, we would've been safer!

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.
Top
 Profile  
 
Chus
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Hatchetman wrote:
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton wouldn't let the Hmong refugees in the USA for some mysterious reason. You know, the same Hmong that fought with us side by side in Vietnam. That's how we treat friends. Where were all the hippies then? Too brain damaged I guess. Liberal concerns of human rights only appears sporadically.


Yeah, all those protesters who weren't born yet, or were children, should have been complaining during Carter's and Clinton's terms.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way
Top
 Profile  
 
Terry's Peeps
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Chus wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton wouldn't let the Hmong refugees in the USA for some mysterious reason. You know, the same Hmong that fought with us side by side in Vietnam. That's how we treat friends. Where were all the hippies then? Too brain damaged I guess. Liberal concerns of human rights only appears sporadically.


Yeah, all those protesters who weren't born yet, or were children, should have been complaining during Carter's and Clinton's terms.

:lol:

That's always a good one.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.
Top
 Profile  
 
Caller Bob
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41485
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Chus wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton wouldn't let the Hmong refugees in the USA for some mysterious reason. You know, the same Hmong that fought with us side by side in Vietnam. That's how we treat friends. Where were all the hippies then? Too brain damaged I guess. Liberal concerns of human rights only appears sporadically.


Yeah, all those protesters who weren't born yet, or were children, should have been complaining during Carter's and Clinton's terms.


Just stay out of the way of Sage Steele and her travel plans.
Top
 Profile  
 
Hatchetman
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
OK, how about all those protesters that didn't protest Obama not letting in any Syrians. Born yet?

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest
Top
 Profile  
 
JORR
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80536
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
The green card part of it also makes it hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on any of it. That is the big problem. There is a valid argument to be made for a temporary ban on refugees. We don't owe them anything and there are other countries that should be dealing with them. When you start banning people who literally already live here it changes the discussion.


From a moral perspective, I wouldn't really say we don't owe them anything. We wrecked their countries, regardless of our intentions. But Europe has discovered that unless you hate your way of life, just allowing these refugees to come pouring in unchecked is a real problem.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 9
  [ 243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Board index » GENERAL BULLSHIT SECTION » GENERAL DISCUSSION

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group