The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: ABX on December 31, 2015, 10:00:59 pm
-
Not exactly a liberal. Dakota is who used to be engaged to Bristol Palin.
Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer pulled no punches when asked about Donald Trump and his plan to institute a moratorium on immigration and visitation by Muslims from the United States.
An outspoken advocate of boots on the ground against ISIS and no stranger to conflict, Meyer wrote:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States.
This, frankly, is the last straw in a high stack of ignorant mob panhandling ideas that have come out of his mouth since he announced his candidacy. Defending this idea in an interview with ABC News, Trump claimed that he is, “the worst thing that’s ever happened to ISIS.” The worst thing to happen to ISIS will be the resolve and heroic actions of our servicemen and women deployed there right now, and the thousands more ready to go. The worst thing to happen to ISIS will be a coalition of our allies relentless in their assault on this cowardly terrorist organization. The worst thing to happen to ISIS will be the entire world — including Muslims — coming together to defeat these thugs. Let’s be real — claiming Trump personally is the worst thing to happen to ISIS is more pompous than Obama claiming responsibility for the death of Osama bin Laden.
Read more: http://controversialtimes.com/politics/medal-of-honor-recipient-just-blew-trumps-campaign-wide-open/#ixzz3vwEaJArw
-
Dakota added more on his facebook page.
The post yesterday regarding my opinion of Donald Trump, though premature, was spoken from the heart. Waiving the flag and pandering to the crowd does not make you a leader. Calling for a ban of all Muslims immigrating is such a statement. First, muslims come from all parts of the world and refusing entry to the United States based on religion is unenforceable and ignorant. If the process is broken then halt all immigration and fix the system. The attached is a link to a blog where I have expended on my points regarding Donald Trump and the statement made.
I am alive today because a Muslim acting as my translator along with many Afghan soldiers helped me. Me not defending those men would be a disgrace to my character. It is time to stop painting a religion with such a broad stroke ISIS representing Muslims is like the KKK representing Christians.
-
I am alive today because a Muslim acting as my translator along with many Afghan soldiers helped me. Me not defending those men would be a disgrace to my character. It is time to stop painting a religion with such a broad stroke ISIS representing Muslims is like the KKK representing Christians.
Our son has the utmost respect for his Muslim translator in Baghdad. They became fast friends, and our son trusted him, literally with his life.
Perhaps that's part of the reason I objected to Trump's blanket condemnation of all Muslims, in spite of my understanding of how dangerous some branches of Islam really are.
I know there are others who disagree, but there are sects of Islam that do not support terror in any way, shape or form.
-
Sorry. Still have to agree with Trump on this one (and I am not a huge Trump supporter). As Trump clearly stated; it is not about religion but about national security. His proposal to ban all Muslim immigration comes after both the terrorist attacks on Paris and San Bernadino. Trump's solution makes a heck of a lot more sense than Hussein's and the DEMS of allowing thousands of potential terrorists into this country in spite of the FBI stating that there is no way to vet these people. Secondly, they will become citizens after 5 years which is absurd.
-
Going by the headline, you would think that it is time for Trump to give up, and throw in the towel. He's done.
Yeah sure. I'm sure this guy just "Blew Trump's campaign wide open".
Give me a break already, with these stupid headlines.
-
I have a lot of respect for his service and accomplishment but a political wizard or international policy wonk, he is not.
-
Our son has the utmost respect for his Muslim translator in Baghdad. They became fast friends, and our son trusted him, literally with his life.
Perhaps that's part of the reason I objected to Trump's blanket condemnation of all Muslims, in spite of my understanding of how dangerous some branches of Islam really are.
I know there are others who disagree, but there are sects of Islam that do not support terror in any way, shape or form.
Call Barry and tell him you will take 4 in your home. Age request between 18-30 males and see how that works out for you. I am sure your neighbors will be most understanding and trilled to DEATH. :silly: :chairbang:
-
Longiron - grow up or bleep off.
-
Longiron - grow up or bleep off.
Happy New Year and F off !!! You started this but I will finish it! :chairbang:
-
"The worst thing to happen to ISIS will be the entire world — including Muslims — coming together to defeat these thugs."
Kumbaya
-
Happy New Tear and F off !!! You started this but I will finish it! :chairbang:
Love ya, friend, and understand it's New Year's Eve, but it's only 6:30pm! :laugh:
-
Tone it down Longiron.
-
Sorry. Still have to agree with Trump on this one (and I am not a huge Trump supporter). As Trump clearly stated; it is not about religion but about national security. His proposal to ban all Muslim immigration comes after both the terrorist attacks on Paris and San Bernadino. Trump's solution makes a heck of a lot more sense than Hussein's and the DEMS of allowing thousands of potential terrorists into this country in spite of the FBI stating that there is no way to vet these people. Secondly, they will become citizens after 5 years which is absurd.
There are positions in between Trump's and the Democrats.
Muslims from certain nations can be forbidden entry, visa processing needs to be completely revamped and tightened, tracking of those overstaying visas needs to be ramped up.
A lot can be done short of keeping every single Muslim from every single country out of America.
As to my post....... the translators who risked their lives every day for our troops and were at grave risk after our troops left, should not be treated the same way as others. It's just what I believe based on the experiences of our military.
-
I'm thinking it was the right decision to put Longiron on IGNORE.
I have a feeling I wouldn't like what he said to me on this thread. ^-^
-
Tone it down Longiron.
Yes net nanny, you bet!. :silly:
-
Do the bleeding hearts on here really want this to happen here? :patriot: And TRUMP is a SOB because he wants to STOP it. :whistle:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/12/31/swedish-society-collapsing-amid-horrific-crime-wave-from-muslim-refugee-swarm-now-trying-to-stop-onslaught/
-
I'm thinking it was the right decision to put Longiron on IGNORE.
I have a feeling I wouldn't like what he said to me on this thread. ^-^
I have never regretted it.
-
Didn't Jimmy Carter ban all Muslims at one point?
-
Didn't Jimmy Carter ban all Muslims at one point?
No, just immigration from Iran and he revoked Iranian student visas.
-
I'm on record in this forum for having stated many times my belief that ALL muslims should be returned from dar al-harb to dar al-islam. Not some of them, but ALL of them.
I stand with Mr. Trump on this one.
He does not go nearly far enough!
So there.
And -- Happy New Year, all!
-
I'm on record in this forum for having stated many times my belief that ALL muslims should be returned from dar al-harb to dar al-islam. Not some of them, but ALL of them.
I stand with Mr. Trump on this one.
He does not go nearly far enough!
So there.
And -- Happy New Year, all!
:beer:
-
Happy New Tear and F off !!! You started this but I will finish it! :chairbang:
I guess 'bleep off' is fine but 'F off' isn't... :shrug:
And there are advantages to both being on Ignore and putting people on Ignore... :silly:
-
ISIS and Trump go perfect together. Making this about Islam rather than Islamofascism is exactly what ISIS wants. Dakota Meyer speaks the truth - Trump is going to get our boys killed. Before Obama abandoned the mission, we succeeded in Iraq with the courage of our troops assisted by their Muslim allies. Meyer has the moral fiber to stand up to a demagogue unwilling to see the consequences of his rhetoric.
-
ISIS and Trump go perfect together. Making this about Islam rather than Islamofascism is exactly what ISIS wants. Dakota Meyer speaks the truth - Trump is going to get our boys killed. Before Obama abandoned the mission, we succeeded in Iraq with the courage of our troops assisted by their Muslim allies. Meyer has the moral fiber to stand up to a demagogue unwilling to see the consequences of his rhetoric.
I wish I wrote that. Bravo!
-
I have never regretted it.
I asked him before to put me on Ignore because he despises me (and follows me around to mock me because I don't love his TRUMPIE), but he refused.
I have had a policy not to put anyone on Ignore because I figure it's cowardice to do so, but this guy is so childish that I just need to get him off my back.
Maybe if he grows up a bit, I can take him off, but for now, I need adult conversation, not the babble he spews.
-
How I wish the anti-Trump zealots would correctly cite the Muslim ban he is advocating:
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."
How is that unreasonable given that the head of the FBI has publically stated we are unable to effectively vet the refugees currently coming here? Did you people learn nothing from San Bernardino? Malik wasn't from the ME, she was a Pakistani, oh, and a Muslim. How many other outbreaks of violence on the part of Muslims do you want before you say, "Hey, wait a minute"? Does Mumbai do it for you? Boko Haram in Nigeria? Muslim extremists in Malaysia?
The violence is not confined to the ME or solely ISIS, it has become a worldwide phenomenon, and until we can be sure the people coming here are not associated with Islamic extremism, no member of Islam should come here.
How is that so hard to understand?
-
When Trump risked disrespecting McCain's service, he pushed my buttons the wrong way.
Trump was a rich boy that dodged the draft with deferments, plain and simple.
His audacity to disrespect McCain who was held as a POW is over the top.
This Dakota I have immense respect for saying what needs to be said.
Anybody can blab like Trump. It takes a man to serve and risk all, so the others can sit at home and get rich.
-
When Trump risked disrespecting McCain's service, he pushed my buttons the wrong way.
Trump was a rich boy that dodged the draft with deferments, plain and simple.
His audacity to disrespect McCain who was held as a POW is over the top.
This Dakota I have immense respect for saying what needs to be said.
Anybody can blab like Trump. It takes a man to serve and risk all, so the others can sit at home and get rich.
goopo
-
I asked him before to put me on Ignore because he despises me (and follows me around to mock me because I don't love his TRUMPIE), but he refused.
I have had a policy not to put anyone on Ignore because I figure it's cowardice to do so, but this guy is so childish that I just need to get him off my back.
Maybe if he grows up a bit, I can take him off, but for now, I need adult conversation, not the babble he spews.
It sounds to me like you feel guilty about putting longiron on ignore. Stop feeling guilty. You can always change your mind and you can test it out. You can click on read post.
Here is how this goes. I had Relic on ignore for a few months, but others replied and quoted Relic and I couldn't help but discover that I was wrong, and Relic did have logical arguments worth considering and debating, so I stopped ignoring Relic. Almost nobody quotes longiron except to admonish longiron. You won't even miss him. Life is too short to argue with someone who is intellectually dishonest or defective. You can't have a reasonable argument/discussion with a shallow sloganeer. The time you waste reading vacuous bile, and agonizing over how bitter you feel when you come here, is time you could be spending making a connection with a sober and engaged thinker who will appreciate the effort.
While we sometimes disagree on politics, IMHO you have shown yourself to be a deep thinker, empathetic to your fellow man, and a woman of delightful wit. I believe you are a class act, honest and indulgent...you don't deserve to be stalked by a fool. Put that fool on ignore and spend your valuable time and brains talking with genuine people. There are so many brilliant people of character who contribute to this forum to court. If we can't disagree without insulting each other what point is there in pursuing a dialogue.
I wish you a very happy New Year and I look forward to your next post dear lady.
-
I'm on record in this forum for having stated many times my belief that ALL muslims should be returned from dar al-harb to dar al-islam. Not some of them, but ALL of them.
I stand with Mr. Trump on this one.
He does not go nearly far enough!
So there.
And -- Happy New Year, all!
:amen:
-
ISIS and Trump go perfect together. Making this about Islam rather than Islamofascism is exactly what ISIS wants. Dakota Meyer speaks the truth - Trump is going to get our boys killed. Before Obama abandoned the mission, we succeeded in Iraq with the courage of our troops assisted by their Muslim allies. Meyer has the moral fiber to stand up to a demagogue unwilling to see the consequences of his rhetoric.
Please see Reply #6
-
You and the rest of the HATERS
Why do you defend your boy-crush with the buzzword of a whiny liberal?
-
How I wish the anti-Trump zealots would correctly cite the Muslim ban he is advocating:
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."
How is that unreasonable given that the head of the FBI has publically stated we are unable to effectively vet the refugees currently coming here? Did you people learn nothing from San Bernardino? Malik wasn't from the ME, she was a Pakistani, oh, and a Muslim. How many other outbreaks of violence on the part of Muslims do you want before you say, "Hey, wait a minute"? Does Mumbai do it for you? Boko Haram in Nigeria? Muslim extremists in Malaysia?
The violence is not confined to the ME or solely ISIS, it has become a worldwide phenomenon, and until we can be sure the people coming here are not associated with Islamic extremism, no member of Islam should come here.
How is that so hard to understand?
An American leader who worries more about the American people's safety and the country's security than about some fuzzy, feel-good concept of "Who we are as a people," is exactly what the American people see in Donald Trump, and why, across the board, they have given Trump his lead with their support. Remembering that nothing in American law or its Constitution compels unfettered immigration. And we are free to stop entry of any group, nationality, or religion that threatens American lives on our soil.
-
An American leader who worries more about the American people's safety and the country's security than about some fuzzy, feel-good concept of "Who we are as a people," is exactly what the American people see in Donald Trump, and why, across the board, they have given Trump his lead with their support. Remembering that nothing in American law or its Constitution compels unfettered immigration. And we are free to stop entry of any group, nationality, or religion that threatens American lives on our soil.
That's it in a nutshell. It is placing the interest of NATIONAL SECURITY above all else. When you have government entities such as the FBI stating that there is no way to properly and adequately vet Muslims (and others) why in the heck would you let them into this country by the thousands especially after the incidents in Paris and San Bernadino? What is going to get us killed is allowing potential terrorists into this country, allowing illegal immigrants to stay, not monitoring existing Muslim activity in mosques, etc. and keeping our borders open!
-
Also...is this the same Dakota Meyer that was married to Bristol Palin, divorced, but planned (?) another child that was just born? If this is indeed the same Dakota Meyer apparently the medal of honor he received was/is in question ... "Crucial parts that the Marine Corps publicized and Obama described are untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated, according to dozens of military documents McClatchy examined. Sworn statements by Meyer and others who participated in the battle indicate that he didn’t save the lives of 13 U.S. service members, leave his vehicle to scoop up 24 Afghans on his first two rescue runs or lead the final push to retrieve the four dead Americans. Moreover, it’s unclear from the documents whether Meyer disobeyed orders when he entered the Ganjgal Valley on Sept. 8, 2009..."
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article24720631.html#storylink=cpy
-
Why do you defend your boy-crush with the buzzword of a whiny liberal?
When will you defend or state anything about the candidate you support. WHO is that and Why do you support he/she ? :whistle:. Fight like a LIB if you want to win as a CONSERVATIVE. The word fight does not exist in the RINOGOPe unless it is against a conservative. :patriot: GET it! Most TRUMP haters do not?
-
How I wish the anti-Trump zealots would correctly cite the Muslim ban he is advocating:
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."
How is that unreasonable given that the head of the FBI has publically stated we are unable to effectively vet the refugees currently coming here? Did you people learn nothing from San Bernardino?
It seems that people hate Trump more than they want national security. Absolutely makes no sense to me.
-
It seems that people hate Trump more than they want national security. Absolutely makes no sense to me.
What makes no sense is attributing a lack of concern for national security to a disagreement with Donald Trump,
You make it sound as if Donald's policy is the only possible position for someone who cares deeply about national security, and that is just plain ugly, libertybele.
-
It seems that people hate Trump more than they want national security. Absolutely makes no sense to me.
LOL! Yep! And they call US "yahoos" and "uneducated".
Smell thyself, 'haters'.
Do it while you're reading The Art Of The Deal, and recognize what a negotiating tactic really is. :whistle:
-
Also...is this the same Dakota Meyer that was married to Bristol Palin, divorced, but planned (?) another child that was just born?
I believe they were engaged, but she broke it off. She did bear his child, though.
-
What makes no sense is attributing a lack of concern for national security to a disagreement with Donald Trump,
You make it sound as if Donald's policy is the only possible position for someone who cares deeply about national security, and that is just plain ugly, libertybele.
Have you articulated a better solution to the flood of Muslims from terror-ridden countries that are coming into the USA? What's better than shutting the spigot off....until we get a handle of vetting who in the heck they are?
-
LOL! Yep! And they call US "yahoos" and "uneducated".
Smell thyself, 'haters'.
Do it while you're reading The Art Of The Deal, and recognize what a negotiating tactic really is. :whistle:
I'm not sure if you're referring to people like me, DC, but disagreement with banning all Muslims is not in the least a lack of concern about national security.
And I find the accusation that, since I don't think every Muslim should be kept out of the country I am willing to let thousands of Americans die, as vile as any accusation I have ever read on any forum.
-
Have you articulated a better solution to the flood of Muslims from terror-ridden countries that are coming into the USA? What's better than shutting the spigot off....until we get a handle of vetting who in the heck they are?
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
Have you articulated a better solution to the flood of Muslims from terror-ridden countries that are coming into the USA? What's better than shutting the spigot off....until we get a handle of vetting who in the heck they are?
Yes, I have articulated it (I think on this thread). Not that it matters.
I mistakenly thought that a rational discussion of the issue was possible, but with the kind of accusations flying, I'm afraid the ad hominems win the day and there's not much point in trying to seriously discuss the issue.
-
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Like internment camps for Japanese Americans?
-
I'm not sure if you're referring to people like me, DC, but disagreement with banning all Muslims is not in the least a lack of concern about national security.
And I find the accusation that, since I don't think every Muslim should be kept out of the country I am willing to let thousands of Americans die, as vile as any accusation I have ever read on any forum.
Nope...I would never speak to you that way, MusicLady! You're very civil in your disagreements about Trump.
Some here though, forget...or dismiss members who are pro-Trump when articulating a generalization of they type of people who are pro-Donald.
My point was that as others have suggested...okay you hate him for [fill-in-the-blank]....so what's your preferred candidate's position on it.
Every single solitary candidate on both sides of the aisle, except Cruz, have blasted Trump for suggesting he'd lock out all Muslims. He alone owns that position.
And that position is held by the VAST majority of voters.
Trump is playing hardball. Everybody else is playing tee-ball.
-
Like internment camps for Japanese Americans?
What's better. Locking them out from entering the country? Or, rounding them up once they're here and putting them behind wire? :whistle:
-
I believe they were engaged, but she broke it off. She did bear his child, though.
According to the "logic" intended by "libertybelle" he is discredited since he impregnated Palin's daughter.
That there is quite a reach.
-
What's better. Locking them out from entering the country? Or, rounding them up once they're here and putting them behind wire? :whistle:
Neither is better. If you're looking for desperate measures, then why not lock up all Muslims who are here like FDR did with the Japanese?
There are many, many things which should be done short of keeping every Muslim out. Keep out all Muslims from defined countries. Tighten up the visa process. Track those who are here and violating visas and get them out.
I understand the populist drive behind Trump's pronouncement, but I don't believe it is either practicable or possibly legal. (That is at least, debatable).
And, again, accusing people of not caring about potential deaths of Americans because one doesn't agree with Trump, is pretty despicable. National security is one of my top issues, if not THE top issue. But I don't agree with banning every Muslim from every country.
(I'll go back to my first post. Our son's life was in the hands of Muslims in Iraq. He was in Psyop, and he depended on Muslims as translators and friends. There are exceptions to the "All Muslims are evil" meme.
It's just not so. Factually.
-
According to the "logic" intended by "libertybelle" he is discredited since he impregnated Palin's daughter.
That there is quite a reach.
Certainly is.....
-
There are many, many things which should be done short of keeping every Muslim out. Keep out all Muslims from defined countries. Tighten up the visa process. Track those who are here and violating visas and get them out.
This is the goal of Trump's plan. The difference between your option and Trump's proposal is just one: Trump wants to stop allowing Muslims into the US unless and until we have the processes you define as critical fully developed and in place.
-
You do not have to ban all Muslims and insult allies and endanger our troops to ban refugees from coming into the states that originate from Syria and other terrorist hotspots. The problem was that Trump painted the entire Muslim population with a broad brush and made himself look like a religious bigot. As mentioned, a total ban or only allowing a few highly scrutinized and vetted people from certain regions and hotspots can be put in place without making it worldwide "let's ban all Muslims." Will threats still remain? Absolutely. I believe that is a price we will always pay to have a free society.
Trump's proclamations seem to just pander to the fears of the public to rally them to actions they would previously never have found acceptable. Mob rule mentality, which I see in Trump's proposal, is not what our country has ever been about and can be just as big a threat as a terrorist attack.
Exactly right. The proclamation was intended to throw red meat to the masses while not being either practically applicable or Constitutional. And in addition, he plays into the leftist stereotype that Republicans are religious bigots and racists.
That is part of the reason I think he may well be in this race to make conservatism look bad and help Hillary.
-
You do not have to ban all Muslims and insult allies and endanger our troops to ban refugees from coming into the states that originate from Syria and other terrorist hotspots. The problem was that Trump painted the entire Muslim population with a broad brush and made himself look like a religious bigot. As mentioned, a total ban or only allowing a few highly scrutinized and vetted people from certain regions and hotspots can be put in place without making it worldwide "let's ban all Muslims." Will threats still remain? Absolutely. I believe that is a price we will always pay to have a free society.
Trump's proclamations seem to just pander to the fears of the public to rally them to actions they would previously never have found acceptable. Mob rule mentality, which I see in Trump's proposal, is not what our country has ever been about and can be just as big a threat as a terrorist attack.
Trump pandering to the fears of the public? I don't know about you, but any group of people who proclaim that they want to kill U.S. citizens should be taken seriously. Allowing those same people into this country by the thousands is pure lunacy.
Rand Paul is correct when he stated; "Nobody has a right to come to America, so this isn’t something that we can say ‘oh their rights are being violated.’ It’s a privilege to come to America and we need to thoroughly screen those who are coming." The FBI has stated that there is no way to properly vet these people. We have every right to say who can and cannot enter the U.S. and we have every right to CLOSE our borders. If that means NOT allowing a group of people who have threatened us (regardless of religious affiliation) the so be it. Trump is NOT rejecting a religion he is advocating protecting this country from a proclaimed enemy. National security should be a top priority for the president.
This won't be the first time that immigration of a particular group into this country would be stopped and rightfully so. To allow a known enemy into this country puts every American in danger; including the president.
-
I'm enjoying this discussion. Thank you cuky, liberty, DC, and musiclady.
-
The group called "Muslims" are not proclaiming they want to kill US Citizens. There are splinter groups from most all major denominations with extremist views whether it be ISUS, the KKK, Skin Heads. etc.
Rand Paul's statement is correct, but has no relevancy to this discussion. The FBI was talking about vetting refugees from Middle East conflicts not all Muslims in general. I believe our National security would be weakened following Trump's proposal as our number of allies in the world would be greatly diminsihed. I can't find a single leader in the free world backing Trump's proposal.
Muslims are NOT entitled to come here period (so his statement is very relative to this conversation). Letting in one terrorist into this country is one terrorist too many. To deliberately let in a group of people who have threatened to kill us IS lunacy. Syrian refugees that were allowed into Europe consisted of very few Christians and very few women and children and terrorists attacked in Paris. Terrorists attacked in San Bernadino.
Our allies have been greatly diminished by the Hussein administration and the world sees us as weak. Our national security would be much more threatened by letting in thousands of people from an area where groups of people have threatened to kill us in trying to appease our allies than not letting these people in.
As for the other leaders agreeing with Trump; I could care less. It is time to stop doing in the name of political correctness and do what is BEST FOR COUNTRY!
-
I'm enjoying this discussion. Thank you cuky, liberty, DC, and musiclady.
So is Dakota Meyer discredited, since he had sex with Gov. Palin's unwed daughter, as Liberty implied?
-
I'm not sure if you're referring to people like me, DC, but disagreement with banning all Muslims is not in the least a lack of concern about national security.
And I find the accusation that, since I don't think every Muslim should be kept out of the country I am willing to let thousands of Americans die, as vile as any accusation I have ever read on any forum.
How in the hell did I miss this one?
MusicLady...all I can say is that every time one of uses the word "hater", doesn't automatically follow that it's about 'you'.
In fact, as I stated...you hold your line in any argument and do it with dignity. Like any MusicLady would. :laugh:
-
I'm enjoying this discussion. Thank you cuky, liberty, DC, and musiclady.
Yes, thank you all for parroting the DNC's talking points about how "we're better than this." Are any of you going to volunteer to accept refugees into you homes?
-
Exactly right. The proclamation was intended to throw red meat to the masses while not being either practically applicable or Constitutional.
What is unconstitutional about suspending the immigration of Syrian Muslims? This was brought up by you and sinkspur a month ago, I refuted it, and both of you fled from that thread. Binary thinking is what Democrats and the GOPe do.
-
So is Dakota Meyer discredited, since he had sex with Gov. Palin's unwed daughter, as Liberty implied?
Funny when one's hero status makes him a political maven of sorts.
Excuse me...please accept this as rhetorical, but using the same 'tactics'...
What does it say about Bristol Palin, a second time not using protection? And by extension, what does it say about Sarah Palin as a fit mother?
You see where this can go.....
-
What makes no sense is attributing a lack of concern for national security to a disagreement with Donald Trump,
You make it sound as if Donald's policy is the only possible position for someone who cares deeply about national security, and that is just plain ugly, libertybele.
??? That is not what I meant at all...good grief. I am merely stating that I agree with Trump and feel that it is necessary to eliminate migration of Muslims into this country at this time and secure our borders in order to obtain national security. I never once stated that someone who didn't have the same views didn't care about our national security. I see letting a known enemy into this country as in invitation to more attacks like the one in San Bernadino, Paris or worse. You certainly wouldn't invite someone who stated they wanted to kill you into your home. Why invite trouble?
I think it is important to again look at the statement that Trump issued; "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."
-
How in the hell did I miss this one?
MusicLady...all I can say is that every time one of uses the word "hater", doesn't automatically follow that it's about 'you'.
In fact, as I stated...you hold your line in any argument and do it with dignity. Like any MusicLady would. :laugh:
Which is why I qualified what I said by saying I wasn't sure if you were talking about me. I'm fine with knowing you weren't.
But when others repeatedly say that disagreeing with Trump about banning all Muslims is tantamount to not caring about national security, I find it extremely problematic.
-
What is unconstitutional about suspending the immigration of Syrian Muslims? This was brought up by you and sinkspur a month ago, I refuted it, and both of you fled from that thread. Binary thinking is what Democrats and the GOPe do.
I never fled from any thread, but if it makes you feel better thinking I did, more power to you, Carling.... **nononono*
As for your example of suspending the immigration of Syrian Muslims, I am in total agreement with it. I have stated several times that narrowing the ban to enemy countries is what I believe SHOULD be done.
Now............ do you have any legitimate questions, or do you just want to compare me to a Democrat?
-
I oppose accepting refugees from Syria and other terrorist hot spots at this point. So, I guess that means my answer would be no I am not accepting refugees from there into my home.
I think you might want to reread the thread if you think our points are parroting the DNC. It is not even close.
With that being said...how are we going to know if a 'Muslim" is from Syria or another hot spot?? They could say they are from some place else. We have know way of knowing who these people really are or where they are actually coming from. The point is we don't know. The mass Muslim migration under the guise of Syrian refugees into Europe and consequently an attack on Paris is a prime example.
-
??? That is not what I meant at all...good grief. I am merely stating that I agree with Trump and feel that it is necessary to eliminate migration of Muslims into this country at this time and secure our borders in order to obtain national security. I never once stated that someone who didn't have the same views didn't care about our national security. I see letting a known enemy into this country as in invitation to more attacks like the one in San Bernadino, Paris or worse. You certainly wouldn't invite someone who stated they wanted to kill you into your home. Why invite trouble?
I think it is important to again look at the statement that Trump issued; "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."
This is what you said, liberty.......
It seems that people hate Trump more than they want national security. Absolutely makes no sense to me.
Perhaps you didn't intend it, but in this statement there is a clear implication that disagreeing with Trump equals hating him and not wanting national security.
Perhaps it's just a weakness in your ability to communicate, but the accusation is clear.
Agree with banning all Muslims, or you don't care about national security.
(It was someone else on another thread that included not caring about having thousands of Americans die).
-
With that being said...how are we going to know if a 'Muslim" is from Syria or another hot spot?? They could say they are from some place else. We have know way of knowing who these people really are or where they are actually coming from. The point is we don't know. The mass Muslim migration under the guise of Syrian refugees into Europe and consequently an attack on Paris is a prime example.
One can want a halt to the entrance of Syrian refugees into America or Europe, and still not agree with the impossible, highly questionable proposition that we should not let any Muslims in at all.
People on your side of the argument continue to conflate multiple issues to make your point.
But it doesn't actually make your point.........
-
One can want a halt to the entrance of Syrian refugees into America or Europe, and still not agree with the impossible, highly questionable proposition that we should not let any Muslims in at all.
People on your side of the argument continue to conflate multiple issues to make your point.
But it doesn't actually make your point.........
The single point I am making in response to another poster, is that halting the entrance of Syrian refugees into this country isn't going to solve the problem. Banning all 'Muslims' into this country until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on will. No solution is going to be fail proof, but as I stated before, why invite trouble in?
-
People on your side of the argument continue to conflate multiple issues to make your point.
What "conflation"? Specifics, please.
-
What "conflation"? Specifics, please.
Simple - that disagreeing with Trump's proposition of banning all Muslims means not wanting to secure the borders, stop Syrian refugees, or protect Americans from terror.
It happens all the time. Agree with Trump or you don't care......
-
The single point I am making in response to another poster, is that halting the entrance of Syrian refugees into this country isn't going to solve the problem. Banning all 'Muslims' into this country until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on will. No solution is going to be fail proof, but as I stated before, why invite trouble in?
Once again.......... why, to you, is there such a narrow comparison? Why am I "inviting trouble in" if I don't think all Muslims can Constitutionally be banned from entering the US?
I know you want it to happen, but why is disagreeing with you tantamount to inviting terror in?
It's not a rational argument.
-
The single point I am making in response to another poster, is that halting the entrance of Syrian refugees into this country isn't going to solve the problem. Banning all 'Muslims' into this country until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on will. No solution is going to be fail proof, but as I stated before, why invite trouble in?
If we can't tell who the terrorists are, what makes you think we can tell who the muslims are?
-
Simple - that disagreeing with Trump's proposition of banning all Muslims means not wanting to secure the borders, stop Syrian refugees, or protect Americans from terror.
It happens all the time. Agree with Trump or you don't care......
These are rational arguments. Hardly conflation of the realities we face.
-
Once again.......... why, to you, is there such a narrow comparison? Why am I "inviting trouble in" if I don't think all Muslims can Constitutionally be banned from entering the US?
I know you want it to happen, but why is disagreeing with you tantamount to inviting terror in?
It's not a rational argument.
I want what to happen???? Muslims have no rights under the Constitution as they are NOT U.S. Citizens. Secondly, we are under NO obligation to have to allow any group of people into this country. Coming into this country is a privilege NOT a right. I see allowing Muslims to migrate into this country as inviting trouble...I didn't say that you saw it that way.
It is a fact, that there are Muslim terrorists who mean us harm. It is a fact that they aren't just located in Syria. So, how are we going to determine which Muslims aren't terrorists especially when the FBI has stated that they haven no way to vet them?
-
What does it say about Bristol Palin, a second time not using protection? And by extension, what does it say about Sarah Palin as a fit mother?
Why is it Bristol Palin's fault when convenient and Sarah Palin's fault when convenient?
-
Why am I "inviting trouble in" if I don't think all Muslims can Constitutionally be banned from entering the US?
Where is it written that the US Constitution guarantees any foreign national the right to enter US borders? That's just nonsense. **nononono*
-
(Foreign--my addition) Muslims have no rights under the Constitution as they are NOT U.S. Citizens. Secondly, we are under NO obligation to have to allow any group of people into this country. Coming into this country is a privilege NOT a right.
:thumbsup3:
-
So is Dakota Meyer discredited, since he had sex with Gov. Palin's unwed daughter, as Liberty implied?
Not in my mind, but I appreciate liberty making me aware that another POV is out there. You take the good with the bad, and I can hardly judge her opinion as a cheap shot when I am not above hitting Trump with everything I can dig up.
I thought your reply that it was "a reach" was solid enough to negate liberty's post.
My comment about enjoying the discussion was more focused on the broader argument of banning muslims. It has been thought provoking to me because the arguement has been made that Trump speaks for a majority of voters who want all muslims banned. I need evidence that a majority agree with Trump, before I can accept that arguement, and even if a majority want all muslims banned it begs the question does that make it right.
I have my opinion, but I have not spent much time questioning why I have my opinion and backing it with proof...hence my gratitude that you are making such substantial arguments for and against muslim banning.
-
Why is it Bristol Palin's fault when convenient and Sarah Palin's fault when convenient?
:beer:
-
So is Dakota Meyer discredited, since he had sex with Gov. Palin's unwed daughter, as Liberty implied?
Did you "miss" the bulk of her post?
Also...is this the same Dakota Meyer that was married to Bristol Palin, divorced, but planned (?) another child that was just born? If this is indeed the same Dakota Meyer apparently the medal of honor he received was/is in question ... "Crucial parts that the Marine Corps publicized and Obama described are untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated, according to dozens of military documents McClatchy examined. Sworn statements by Meyer and others who participated in the battle indicate that he didn’t save the lives of 13 U.S. service members, leave his vehicle to scoop up 24 Afghans on his first two rescue runs or lead the final push to retrieve the four dead Americans. Moreover, it’s unclear from the documents whether Meyer disobeyed orders when he entered the Ganjgal Valley on Sept. 8, 2009..."
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article24720631.html#storylink=cpy
That is, the part after the first sentence?
(I have no idea what the story is behind this guy, but focusing on one sentence and ignoring the vast majority of the content that she posted to focus on a non-sequitor about Bristol Palin's sex life is disingenuous, at best.)
-
"A journalist working for a Dutch magazine had a fake Syrian passport ready for him in less than two days – with the picture of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands printed on it.
Reporter Harald Doornbos who is currently based in Syria and works for the Dutch Nieuwe Revu magazine said anyone – including jihadists and Syrians who have committed crimes against humanity and are banned from entering Europe, can easily do the same.
A forged passport and an ID card cost the journalist US $825, he said on Twitter. He only had to make a phone call to order the fake documents, and was able to pick them up all ready within 40 hours. The man was told he would be able to enter Cyprus with his newly obtained documents.
Both were under the fake name of Malek Ramadan, but had the photograph of the Dutch PM Mark Rutte printed on them. The journalist said it wasn't an initial idea to have the picture of the high-ranking official on the document, he just opted for it when asked to supply a name and a photograph – which only shows you can have pretty much anything printed on "good quality" fake documents.
"If we are able to buy a good quality forged Syrian passport, so can Syrian fighters… and jihadists," Doornbos said, concluding that "then it is relatively simple for them to enter the EU unnoticed and commit terrorist attacks."
According to Doornbos's sources, the fighters illegally getting the same fake documents travel from ISIS- and Al-Qaeda-controlled areas in northern Syria to Bodrum in Turkey, and illegally crossing over to Greece from there.
"In Greece, he shows his false Syrian passport to the authorities. Since the passport is fake, under the fake name, the Greeks have no idea that they are not dealing with a Syrian refugee but a member of ISIS or Al-Qaeda," Nieuwe Revu wrote, adding that from Greece such illegal travelers proceed to Hungary through Macedonia and Serbia, and then "travel without control to the other Schengen States."
Concerns that jihadist fighters could be sneaking in to Europe during the ongoing migrant crisis, disguised as asylum seekers, have grown recently, as tens of thousands of people continue to arrive to Europe from the Middle East, and Syria in particular. Even Pope Francis warned of the danger of ISIS "infiltration" via refugee flows this week, saying that the fighters may take advantage of the situation to slip into EU undetected."
https://www.rt.com/news/315591-fake-syrian-passport-journalist/
Or just as easily slip into the United States undetected. We have no idea who is coming into our country as a "refugee", just as we have no idea who is coming in over our southern border. Both avenues must be blocked until we know who is coming in.
-
"A journalist working for a Dutch magazine had a fake Syrian passport ready for him in less than two days – with the picture of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands printed on it.
Reporter Harald Doornbos who is currently based in Syria and works for the Dutch Nieuwe Revu magazine said anyone – including jihadists and Syrians who have committed crimes against humanity and are banned from entering Europe, can easily do the same.
A forged passport and an ID card cost the journalist US $825, he said on Twitter. He only had to make a phone call to order the fake documents, and was able to pick them up all ready within 40 hours. The man was told he would be able to enter Cyprus with his newly obtained documents.
Both were under the fake name of Malek Ramadan, but had the photograph of the Dutch PM Mark Rutte printed on them. The journalist said it wasn't an initial idea to have the picture of the high-ranking official on the document, he just opted for it when asked to supply a name and a photograph – which only shows you can have pretty much anything printed on "good quality" fake documents.
"If we are able to buy a good quality forged Syrian passport, so can Syrian fighters… and jihadists," Doornbos said, concluding that "then it is relatively simple for them to enter the EU unnoticed and commit terrorist attacks."
According to Doornbos's sources, the fighters illegally getting the same fake documents travel from ISIS- and Al-Qaeda-controlled areas in northern Syria to Bodrum in Turkey, and illegally crossing over to Greece from there.
"In Greece, he shows his false Syrian passport to the authorities. Since the passport is fake, under the fake name, the Greeks have no idea that they are not dealing with a Syrian refugee but a member of ISIS or Al-Qaeda," Nieuwe Revu wrote, adding that from Greece such illegal travelers proceed to Hungary through Macedonia and Serbia, and then "travel without control to the other Schengen States."
Concerns that jihadist fighters could be sneaking in to Europe during the ongoing migrant crisis, disguised as asylum seekers, have grown recently, as tens of thousands of people continue to arrive to Europe from the Middle East, and Syria in particular. Even Pope Francis warned of the danger of ISIS "infiltration" via refugee flows this week, saying that the fighters may take advantage of the situation to slip into EU undetected."
https://www.rt.com/news/315591-fake-syrian-passport-journalist/
Or just as easily slip into the United States undetected. We have no idea who is coming into our country as a "refugee", just as we have no idea who is coming in over our southern border. Both avenues must be blocked until we know who is coming in.
:howlin: :howlin: :howlin: :howlin: :howlin: :howlin:
-
I do have a minor question in all this:
What about the Kurds? Would they be let in - after all, they ARE majority Sunni Muslim. Or will you piss on the only people effectively fighting your battle on the ground yet again? Cause that's what it feels like and sounds like.
-
I do have a minor question in all this:
What about the Kurds? Would they be let in - after all, they ARE majority Sunni Muslim. Or will you piss on the only people effectively fighting your battle on the ground yet again? Cause that's what it feels like and sounds like.
Your question points to the difficulty of addressing this issue and I really don't know the answer. I think it would be in the best interest of our security to stop the people fleeing these volatile countries in the middle east from coming here until we develop a comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, that would have to include Christians and Kurds because it's too easy to slip in while pretending to be something you are not. It doesn't appear very compassionate, but safety and survival has to come first.
-
I do have a minor question in all this:
What about the Kurds? Would they be let in - after all, they ARE majority Sunni Muslim. Or will you piss on the only people effectively fighting your battle on the ground yet again? Cause that's what it feels like and sounds like.
As long as they are willing to eat a bacon double cheeseburger, and profess their love for American Football, video games, and Taylor Swift...you know assimilate...like any Christian American I say let them in.
-
Your question points to the difficulty of addressing this issue and I really don't know the answer. I think it would be in the best interest of our security to stop the people fleeing these volatile countries in the middle east from coming here until we develop a comprehensive plan.
Comprehensive immigration reform? Sounds easy enough.
-
I do have a minor question in all this:
What about the Kurds? Would they be let in - after all, they ARE majority Sunni Muslim. Or will you piss on the only people effectively fighting your battle on the ground yet again? Cause that's what it feels like and sounds like.
It is my understanding that the US State Department is quite effectively BLOCKING entrance to Christians from the Middle East, Yazidis, Kurds, Arab translators that have assisted US troops, or any person aligned with US interests. This is by design from our POTUS.
-
Comprehensive immigration reform? Sounds easy enough.
:laugh:
There's immigration reform and refugee reform too.
-
:laugh:
There's immigration reform and refugee reform too.
Indeed. But I think the Syrian refugees are out of luck. Nobody wants them.
-
Indeed. But I think the Syrian refugees are out of luck. Nobody wants them.
Yeah. There was something about all those well-dressed young men fleeing their country instead of fighting for it that disturbed me.
-
Where in the constitution does it say foreign nationals have a constitutionally protected right to enter the United States or that we cannot set immigration policy based on threats to our sovereignty and security?
It would be pure hogwash--a liberal fantasy--to claim a right to enter the U.S. is somewhere in the constitution.
-
I want what to happen???? Muslims have no rights under the Constitution as they are NOT U.S. Citizens. Secondly, we are under NO obligation to have to allow any group of people into this country. Coming into this country is a privilege NOT a right. I see allowing Muslims to migrate into this country as inviting trouble...I didn't say that you saw it that way.
It is a fact, that there are Muslim terrorists who mean us harm. It is a fact that they aren't just located in Syria. So, how are we going to determine which Muslims aren't terrorists especially when the FBI has stated that they haven no way to vet them?
You want all Muslims to be banned from entering the US. That's what you want to happen.
OF COURSE there are Muslim terrorists who mean us harm. It does not then follow that all Muslims are terrorists and should be banned. Oh............. and I also know (of course) that foreign nationals do not have Constitutional rights. And I didn't say that all terrorists came from Syria (I listed in my short recommendations, stopping immigration from all enemy countries).
There are ways to determine who is involved in terrorism that are not currently being employed. Background, associations, social media......... all kinds of ways. The system can be tightened up without banning all Muslims. Muslims can be vetted just like anyone else can be.
I'll go back to my original post agreeing with the article. There were many translators who risked their lives for our troops (including my son). They were thoroughly vetted by the US military. If they sought sanctuary in the US because they are at risk of being killed by terrorists, I don't think they should be banned.
-
It is my understanding that the US State Department is quite effectively BLOCKING entrance to Christians from the Middle East, Yazidis, Kurds, Arab translators that have assisted US troops, or any person aligned with US interests. This is by design from our POTUS.
Correct. Obama only wants Muslims from the ME. He prefers that Christians stay there and be crucified rather than allow entry into America. He calls it, IIRC, 'religious discrimination.'
-
Your question points to the difficulty of addressing this issue and I really don't know the answer. I think it would be in the best interest of our security to stop the people fleeing these volatile countries in the middle east from coming here until we develop a comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, that would have to include Christians and Kurds because it's too easy to slip in while pretending to be something you are not. It doesn't appear very compassionate, but safety and survival has to come first.
I know you're aware of the Nazarene Fund Project that the Blaze is supporting. The Christians they are getting out of the ME (who are banned from entering the US by this administration) are thoroughly vetted by their pastors and people in their churches to verify that they are Christian and not just infiltrating.
It CAN be done.
-
It is my understanding that the US State Department is quite effectively BLOCKING entrance to Christians from the Middle East, Yazidis, Kurds, Arab translators that have assisted US troops, or any person aligned with US interests. This is by design from our POTUS.
Could you provide a link, the source, the evidence for that?
-
I know you're aware of the Nazarene Fund Project that the Blaze is supporting. The Christians they are getting out of the ME (who are banned from entering the US by this administration) are thoroughly vetted by their pastors and people in their churches to verify that they are Christian and not just infiltrating.
It CAN be done.
Yes, it can be done, but the way it is happening now is chaotic. I'm sure Beck's group is going over and above to make sure they are screening who they bring here. But, what happens when other groups decide to do this? Groups that might not be so attentive - or that might have ulterior motives?
The whole thing needs to be paused in order to come up with a comprehensive plan that ensures that we know who is coming into our country, where they are coming from and why they are coming. That's what Trump was saying - he said - until we get a handle on it. What we are doing now is the wrong thing to do. We cannot allow this process to be chaotic.
-
I know you're aware of the Nazarene Fund Project that the Blaze is supporting. The Christians they are getting out of the ME (who are banned from entering the US by this administration) are thoroughly vetted by their pastors and people in their churches to verify that they are Christian and not just infiltrating.
It CAN be done.
Ok Music. I will give you that it can be done. Obviously not by this administration (no surprise) as I believe that this administration is bringing in terrorists by design and at this point in time I believe Trump is correct in that he would ban Muslims into this country UNTIL we get a handle on things. Right now, and San Bernadino was a prime example it is just too easy for a terrorist(s) to slip into the U.S. undetected. We still have no way of knowing who is coming into this country as a 'refugee' or terrorist; until we have a way to adequately discern who is who, I stand with Trump. I further think for now, we need to ban all migration into this country until we can secure our borders (southern and northern). This wouldn't be the first time that immigration into this country was halted. These are extraordinary times which I believe call for extraordinary measures.
What Beck did was very courageous and honorable and I just don't see Hussein doing the right thing for this country and certainly in the name of Christianity.
-
CBN article: Syrian Christians Denied VISAs to West
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/december/christian-syrian-refugees-denied-visas-to-west/?mobile=false (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/december/christian-syrian-refugees-denied-visas-to-west/?mobile=false)
-
CBN article: Syrian Christians Denied VISAs to West
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/december/christian-syrian-refugees-denied-visas-to-west/?mobile=false (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/december/christian-syrian-refugees-denied-visas-to-west/?mobile=false)
First the article is over two years old (Dec. 2013).
Second it does NOT say in the article that the US is blocking visas.
Thirdly your source is the 700Club religious enterprises, which may be biased to bend the story.
A woman that worked in my office is Syrian-Christian. She lived in England and then here for her entire adult life but her parents remained in Syria.
Her father died (from old age) when violence was ramping up, so she traveled to Syria and brought her mother back here.
-
Ok Music. I will give you that it can be done. Obviously not by this administration (no surprise) as I believe that this administration is bringing in terrorists by design and at this point in time I believe Trump is correct in that he would ban Muslims into this country UNTIL we get a handle on things. Right now, and San Bernadino was a prime example it is just too easy for a terrorist(s) to slip into the U.S. undetected. We still have no way of knowing who is coming into this country as a 'refugee' or terrorist; until we have a way to adequately discern who is who, I stand with Trump. I further think for now, we need to ban all migration into this country until we can secure our borders (southern and northern). This wouldn't be the first time that immigration into this country was halted. These are extraordinary times which I believe call for extraordinary measures.
What Beck did was very courageous and honorable and I just don't see Hussein doing the right thing for this country and certainly in the name of Christianity.
Of course, Hussein won't do it. I have come to the conclusion after years of watching him and listening to him, that he considers Christians to be the enemy.
The flaw in your analysis, as I see it, is that one of the San Bernardino terrorists was American born. Stopping immigration wouldn't have stopped him.
My question to you.............. would you ban all migration of everyone from everywhere....... not just Muslims? I actually think it would be more consistent to temporarily stop migration from everywhere, halt the visa process, secure the borders completely, than to just say Muslims can't come in.
There is historic precedent for stopping immigration, and I see that as being more feasible than just stopping Muslims.
I also note that the most draconian measures taken in times of war were done by Progressives who disregarded Americans' civil liberties to 'protect' us from both Germans and Japanese.
We're on the precipice of doing that if we take the measures that Trump is suggesting. (Of course, that IS consistent with his being a Progressive....which needs to be factored into his political ploy here).
-
First the article is over two years old (Dec. 2013).
Second it does NOT say in the article that the US is blocking visas.
Thirdly your source is the 700Club religious enterprises, which may be biased to bend the story.
A woman that worked in my office is Syrian-Christian. She lived in England and then here for her entire adult life but her parents remained in Syria.
Her father died (from old age) when violence was ramping up, so she traveled to Syria and brought her mother back here.
I don't have the numbers right at hand right now, but the percentage of Christians coming from Syria is miniscule. Hussein IS blocking Christian entry.
-
First the article is over two years old (Dec. 2013).
Second it does NOT say in the article that the US is blocking visas.
Thirdly your source is the 700Club religious enterprises, which may be biased to bend the story.
A woman that worked in my office is Syrian-Christian. She lived in England and then here for her entire adult life but her parents remained in Syria.
Her father died (from old age) when violence was ramping up, so she traveled to Syria and brought her mother back here.
.
You ask for proof. You're given proof. You discredit the proof and instead offer a personal anecdote about a Syrian Christian being allowed into the U.S. that was further in the past than the article that was posted. Well done.
-
I don't have the numbers right at hand right now, but the percentage of Christians coming from Syria is miniscule. Hussein IS blocking Christian entry.
Show me the source. When I asked the other member to produce support for their contention, it fell short.
I read through the article twice, which Famous cited, and it did NOT prove the point made.
If it is true, show proof. That is all I ask.
I do not claim to be an expert in Syria. I do know that Christians in Syria have been a category which were historically protected by Assad. So maybe they think he will prevail, and they will be safe--hence no need to leave. I am merely suggesting a logical idea.
I have read the statistics which show the "refugees" from the Mideast are young men, often lying about their origins. I get that. That is a separate topic.
-
No Room At the Inn: Why Few Syrian Refugees Come to US
(National Catholic Register--December 2015)
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/no-room-at-the-inn-why-few-syrian-christian-refugees-come-to-us/ (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/no-room-at-the-inn-why-few-syrian-christian-refugees-come-to-us/)
-
.
You ask for proof. You're given proof. You discredit the proof and instead offer a personal anecdote about a Syrian Christian being allowed into the U.S. that was further in the past than the article that was posted. Well done.
That was not sufficient proof, of the claim made.
Happy New Year.
-
No Room At the Inn: Why Few Syrian Refugees Come to US
(National Catholic Register--December 2015)
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/no-room-at-the-inn-why-few-syrian-christian-refugees-come-to-us/ (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/no-room-at-the-inn-why-few-syrian-christian-refugees-come-to-us/)
Your article again, does NOT support your contention, that the US State Dept. upon Obama's administration direction, has blocked Christians.
I am sympathetic to the plight of Mideast Christians.
-
Your article again, does NOT support your contention, that the US State Dept. upon Obama's administration direction, has blocked Christians.
I am sympathetic to the plight of Mideast Christians.
If you want to continue to try and defend the laughably small percentage of Syrian Christians being accepted into the US compared to the number of Muslims under the Obama State department by playing a semantics game, by all means continue to do so. Why are we accepting so few Christians yet opening our country to every potential jihadist possible? Is it a coincidence? Why did it take Obama until Christmas to even recognize the plight of Christians under ISIS rule?
-
If you want to continue to try and defend the laughably small percentage of Syrian Christians being accepted into the US compared to the number of Muslims under the Obama State department by playing a semantics game, by all means continue to do so. Why are we accepting so few Christians yet opening our country to every potential jihadist possible? Is it a coincidence? Why did it take Obama until Christmas to even recognize the plight of Christians under ISIS rule?
Separate subjects.
Original claim was State Dept. blocked Christians, but two cited articles do not show that (or even mention it).
Small number of Christians does not prove the /State Dept. blocked them.
-
.
You ask for proof. You're given proof. You discredit the proof and instead offer a personal anecdote about a Syrian Christian being allowed into the U.S. that was further in the past than the article that was posted. Well done.
=================================================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=state+department+blocking+syrian+christians&oq=state+department+blocking+syrian+christians&aqs=chrome..69i57.16534j1j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
:pondering:
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=state+department+blocking+syrian+christians&oq=state+department+blocking+syrian+christians&aqs=chrome..69i57.16534j1j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
:pondering:
Find and post the specific proof (article), that the State Department blocked Christians.
-
Find and post the specific proof (article), that the State Department blocked Christians.
Semantics Guy gotta semantic. :beer:
I didn't make that specific claim, but acting like the State Department is without blame for this obvious disparity is kind of silly, isn't it?
-
Semantics Guy gotta semantic. :beer:
I didn't make that specific claim, but acting like the State Department is without blame for this obvious disparity is kind of silly, isn't it?
The initial claim was that the State Dept. blocked Christians. I said please cite evidence. None as yet has come forth.
I am not acting like anything, merely restating the original question which is provide the citation, the proof. Like I said to begin on the first article, I read it over and over and found NO PROOF of the claim.
So you are free to read through your google list of articles and find one which actually substantiates the initial claim. Then post the article or excepts here.
-
Find and post the specific proof (article), that the State Department blocked Christians.
Dr. Michael Savage discussed this at length the other day.
Because it's rebel insurgents doing the killing and not the government's forces, they don't qualify for refugee status.
It's the reasoning they're citing, for locking out Christians.
-
The initial claim was that the State Dept. blocked Christians. I said please cite evidence. None as yet has come forth.
I am not acting like anything, merely restating the original question which is provide the citation, the proof. Like I said to begin on the first article, I read it over and over and found NO PROOF of the claim.
So you are free to read through your google list of articles and find one which actually substantiates the initial claim. Then post the article or excepts here.
It's like you didn't even read a word I wrote. :silly:
-
The initial claim was that the State Dept. blocked Christians. I said please cite evidence. None as yet has come forth.
I am not acting like anything, merely restating the original question which is provide the citation, the proof. Like I said to begin on the first article, I read it over and over and found NO PROOF of the claim.
So you are free to read through your google list of articles and find one which actually substantiates the initial claim. Then post the article or excepts here.
Appears this is the thread where reason and imagination journey to die.
Has the State Dept blocked Hillary's emails?
Did the State Dept deny security at Benghazi?
Has the State Dept cooked up a "deal" with the Iranian mullahs?
As a practicing Catholic, I have watched as the US turned its back on Catholics, Copts, and other Eastern Orthodox Christian sects for years--beginning with the Obama regime. You want proof? Go there and see for yourself.
-
Find and post the specific proof (article), that the State Department blocked Christians.
Don't know if this has been mentioned, but the Nazarene project (Glenn Beck) has rescued hundreds of Christians and taken them to European countries.
They said that the US would NOT take any of them, to our shame. I'm guessing that there is some specific information on MercuryOne or the Blaze that gives details as to why and how Christians are being denied entry into the US.
-
Some relevant info:
WHERE ARE THE RESCUED REFUGEES GOING TO END UP? We hope to be able to bring many of them to the United States. However, the United States remains closed to Christian refugees. Meanwhile, a number of European and South American countries have agreed to provide a limited number of VISAS to those we help evacuate.
HOW DO WE PRESSURE THE U.S. TO BECOME A RECEIVING COUNTRY? Presently, the United States is not a receiving country. If you would like to help us put pressure on the U.S. Government to take in Middle Eastern Christians, then please fill how the form entitled “Are you ready to house a family from the Middle East?” here. What are some other ways? Write your Congressperson; Raise your voice as an advocate through social media; Get your pastor, rabbi or priest on board; Provide financial support.
Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/09/09/the-nazarene-fund-frequently-asked-questions/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link
-
If you want to continue to try and defend the laughably small percentage of Syrian Christians being accepted into the US compared to the number of Muslims under the Obama State department by playing a semantics game, by all means continue to do so. Why are we accepting so few Christians yet opening our country to every potential jihadist possible? Is it a coincidence? Why did it take Obama until Christmas to even recognize the plight of Christians under ISIS rule?
Based on past actions by Hussein; namely anti-Israeli sentiment, failed policies in the Middle East, Benghazi, allowing ISIS to expand, his 'deal' with Iran and his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, I have little doubt that he is denying Christians entrance into the U.S. and welcoming jihadists. Looks like D'Souza was correct; "he exposed for the world to see that Obama wanted to create a Muslim Jihadist caliphate across North Africa and the Middle East". I think it is rather obvious that the last thing Hussein wants is to allow more Christians into this country. That would defeat his purpose.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/inside-the-ring-muslim-brotherhood-has-obamas-secr/?page=all
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-caliphate/