Blank Discussion Topic

Options
15657596162350

Comments

  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    BS44325 said:

    There's a thorough vetting process for refugees already. Do people not know this?

    This is Extreme Vetting. All refugees will be required to sing More Then Words.
    I hate to admit it...but that made me chuckle.


    BUT, extreme vetting is fucking stupid.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617

    There's a thorough vetting process for refugees already. Do people not know this?

    I'm pretty sure people know there is a vetting process but thorough can be subjective, the current admin wants it extreme not thorough.
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    BS44325 said:

    There's a thorough vetting process for refugees already. Do people not know this?

    This is Extreme Vetting. All refugees will be required to sing More Then Words.
    Obligatory link

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrIiLvg58SY
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    my2hands said:

    How do the right wing sympathizers feel about the restructuring of the National Security Council that downgrades the Chair of The Joint Chiefs and National Intelligence Director while making white nationalist Steve Bannon a full member??? Don't forget kooky Mike "Fake News" Flynn, who Colin Powell felt had gone off the deep end, is running it

    Pro military conservatives should be screaming the loudest right now... maybe they will just get in line like good little sympathizers

    I am very interested in what you think about this move BS, foreign policy is one of the issues you hang your hat on and I wonder how this can be viewed in a positive light.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    edited January 2017
    JC29856 said:

    my2hands said:

    JC29856 said:

    And the law that our resident professor cited was introduced by a republican congressman and passed by a republican house and senate as part of a trillion dollar tax and spending package.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_114th_United_States_Congress

    I would hardly characterize this as "Obama's law." And once passed, did Obama's DHS immediately enforce it, leading to similar chaos that Trump's actions caused? False equivalency. The least you can do is own Trump's actions. You own it. And about those numbers, JC? Obama raised the number of immigrants allowed in in his final year of office from 70,000 to 110,000 probably because he saw the writing on the wall. This is just the beginning. You trump supporters own it.

    Let's back up because I know not everyone has a stellar memory.
    Yesterday, H2m asked for the visa ban law that Obama signed, as if one didn't exist or as if he is ignorant to the fact that one existed. I kindly provide the law directly from .gov.
    Today H2M wakes up after late night peek-a-boo, makes his lemon water and Manuka honey drink, sits at his computer, checks the Trump thread, reads benjs posts, thinks it's a good idea, takes it to heart, then proceeds attempt to implement said benjs strategy. H2M then proceeds for the next 3 hours to study the law I posted composes his retort and comes up with this:

    It's not "Obamas law" even thou nobody referred to it as "Obamas law" ignoring that the president has to sign bills in order for it to become law. Obama signed it, no veto, sign and drive.
    Then he further tries to dissociate Obama from his signature on the visa ban law by claiming, it was
    1. part of a larger more important bill package that needed to be passed
    2. originated in the house / senate, furthermore noting that the house and Senate were opposition party republicans.

    My question, if this was so un American to Obama, couldn't he issue an executive order doing away with the visa ban instead of having his DHS enforce it?

    H2M failed to mention the 4 month Iraqi ban Obama also implemented in 2011.

    Cheers...TAILTUCK
    Do you support the current Muslim/refugee/immigration ban?

    Do you support the propsed wall & deportations?

    One word yes or no answers, please
    I wouldn't call it a Muslim ban..see previous post a few pages back.
    I have no problem with a temporary ban issued by a new administration, in order for it them to work thru a more permanent solution whatever it may be, extreme vetting etc. I do have a problem with trumps implemention and preparedness dealing with those en route or within 72 hours of travel.
    I'm am totally against ILLEGAL immigration.
    I have no problem with a proposed wall, it worked for Israel and we paid for that one so why not. Without knowing the details I can only say I'm not against a wall. I'll reserve judgement on the wall until I know the particulars.
    I'm all for the continuance of Obamas record breaking deportations of ILLEGAL immigrants.
    Trust the process.
    So that is a yes, yes, and yes. I appreciate you taking a clear cut position.

    But, you clearly told me in the Podesta emails thread that you were voting for Jill Stein??? I'm having a really hard time believing a Jill Stein voter would support those positions???

    So which time you were lying, then or now?
    Post edited by my2hands on
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    vaggar99 said:
    You beat me to it. Oh well, double Extreme!
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    BS44325 said:

    my2hands said:

    Look at all the right wing snowflakes getting triggered... by the truth

    Not triggered. Observing a meltdown. Those are two very different things.
    No meltdowns here... just sympathizers to a racist & xenophobic president & policies... whether they realize yet or not
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited January 2017
    my2hands said:

    JC29856 said:

    my2hands said:

    JC29856 said:

    And the law that our resident professor cited was introduced by a republican congressman and passed by a republican house and senate as part of a trillion dollar tax and spending package.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_114th_United_States_Congress

    I would hardly characterize this as "Obama's law." And once passed, did Obama's DHS immediately enforce it, leading to similar chaos that Trump's actions caused? False equivalency. The least you can do is own Trump's actions. You own it. And about those numbers, JC? Obama raised the number of immigrants allowed in in his final year of office from 70,000 to 110,000 probably because he saw the writing on the wall. This is just the beginning. You trump supporters own it.

    Let's back up because I know not everyone has a stellar memory.
    Yesterday, H2m asked for the visa ban law that Obama signed, as if one didn't exist or as if he is ignorant to the fact that one existed. I kindly provide the law directly from .gov.
    Today H2M wakes up after late night peek-a-boo, makes his lemon water and Manuka honey drink, sits at his computer, checks the Trump thread, reads benjs posts, thinks it's a good idea, takes it to heart, then proceeds attempt to implement said benjs strategy. H2M then proceeds for the next 3 hours to study the law I posted composes his retort and comes up with this:

    It's not "Obamas law" even thou nobody referred to it as "Obamas law" ignoring that the president has to sign bills in order for it to become law. Obama signed it, no veto, sign and drive.
    Then he further tries to dissociate Obama from his signature on the visa ban law by claiming, it was
    1. part of a larger more important bill package that needed to be passed
    2. originated in the house / senate, furthermore noting that the house and Senate were opposition party republicans.

    My question, if this was so un American to Obama, couldn't he issue an executive order doing away with the visa ban instead of having his DHS enforce it?

    H2M failed to mention the 4 month Iraqi ban Obama also implemented in 2011.

    Cheers...TAILTUCK
    Do you support the current Muslim/refugee/immigration ban?

    Do you support the propsed wall & deportations?

    One word yes or no answers, please
    I wouldn't call it a Muslim ban..see previous post a few pages back.
    I have no problem with a temporary ban issued by a new administration, in order for it them to work thru a more permanent solution whatever it may be, extreme vetting etc. I do have a problem with trumps implemention and preparedness dealing with those en route or within 72 hours of travel.
    I'm am totally against ILLEGAL immigration.
    I have no problem with a proposed wall, it worked for Israel and we paid for that one so why not. Without knowing the details I can only say I'm not against a wall. I'll reserve judgement on the wall until I know the particulars.
    I'm all for the continuance of Obamas record breaking deportations of ILLEGAL immigrants.
    Trust the process.
    So that is a yes, yes, and yes. I appreciate you taking a clear cut position.

    But, you clearly told me in the Podesta emails thread that you were voting for Jill Stein??? I'm having a really hard time believing a Jill Stein voter would support those positions???

    So which time you were lying, then or now?
    Whatever you say
    You missed my post where I vote pact'd, I'll be glad to find it for you.
    Keep trying.... The cheerleaders in here are taking on the role of the media with their failed gotcha attempts.
    Post edited by JC29856 on
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,539
    JC29856 said:

    There's a thorough vetting process for refugees already. Do people not know this?

    I'm pretty sure people know there is a vetting process but thorough can be subjective, the current admin wants it extreme not thorough.
    That's an assumption that I wouldn't make with trump supporters. The current admin wants to control people with fear.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    rgambs said:

    my2hands said:

    How do the right wing sympathizers feel about the restructuring of the National Security Council that downgrades the Chair of The Joint Chiefs and National Intelligence Director while making white nationalist Steve Bannon a full member??? Don't forget kooky Mike "Fake News" Flynn, who Colin Powell felt had gone off the deep end, is running it

    Pro military conservatives should be screaming the loudest right now... maybe they will just get in line like good little sympathizers

    I am very interested in what you think about this move BS, foreign policy is one of the issues you hang your hat on and I wonder how this can be viewed in a positive light.
    Not sure how I feel about this yet. Would like to know more. Bannon being in the room doesn't trouble me...he does have a navy background after all...still want more info on the "downgrading" of the Joint Chiefs though. Remember that it isn't just Trump and Bannon in the room. Sec. Mattis and soon to be Sec. Tillerson will be there as well. If the Sec. of Defense was a civilian as per usual then this would certainly be a troubling "downgrade" because nobody with actual military experience would be present. General Mattis however gives Trump that military knowledge that would be lacking so is the Joint Chiefs presence absolutely necessary? This is what I would want to know. The current reporting states that the Joint Chiefs would be called upon if needed. That might be ok and I think deferring to Mattis on this decision is acceptable. No need for my2hands to get hysterical...yet.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617

    JC29856 said:

    There's a thorough vetting process for refugees already. Do people not know this?

    I'm pretty sure people know there is a vetting process but thorough can be subjective, the current admin wants it extreme not thorough.
    That's an assumption that I wouldn't make with trump supporters. The current admin wants to control people with fear.
    Maybe...but its a fact Hilliary supporters were controlled by media and poll numbers, as evidence by her turnout.
  • InHiding80
    InHiding80 Upland,CA Posts: 7,623
    my2hands said:

    Look at all the right wing snowflakes getting triggered... by the truth

    You could tell them that the earth is round after Trump says it's flat and they'd say, "Nuh uh! You're a libtard snowflake cuck, Derp!" At least most Obama supporters don't agree with everything he does and says. Trump could say that Charlize Theron and Rachel McAdams are ugly and they'd agree in unison. They're that brainwashed.
  • InHiding80
    InHiding80 Upland,CA Posts: 7,623
    vaggar99 said:
    Remember that video for Rest In Peace? Perfect metaphor for how America got to Nazi Germany this week.
  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762

    my2hands said:

    Look at all the right wing snowflakes getting triggered... by the truth

    You could tell them that the earth is round after Trump says it's flat and they'd say, "Nuh uh! You're a libtard snowflake cuck, Derp!" At least most Obama supporters don't agree with everything he does and says. Trump could say that Charlize Theron and Rachel McAdams are ugly and they'd agree in unison. They're that brainwashed.
    Rachel Mcledvedderman has an awesome ring to it. She will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,539
    JC29856 said:

    JC29856 said:

    There's a thorough vetting process for refugees already. Do people not know this?

    I'm pretty sure people know there is a vetting process but thorough can be subjective, the current admin wants it extreme not thorough.
    That's an assumption that I wouldn't make with trump supporters. The current admin wants to control people with fear.
    Maybe...but its a fact Hilliary supporters were controlled by media and poll numbers, as evidence by her turnout.
    What? The media reported poll numbers and you think that's media control and led to low turnout? Plus, you think that's similar at all to trump beating the fear drum about Muslims and Mexicans?
  • InHiding80
    InHiding80 Upland,CA Posts: 7,623

    my2hands said:

    Look at all the right wing snowflakes getting triggered... by the truth

    You could tell them that the earth is round after Trump says it's flat and they'd say, "Nuh uh! You're a libtard snowflake cuck, Derp!" At least most Obama supporters don't agree with everything he does and says. Trump could say that Charlize Theron and Rachel McAdams are ugly and they'd agree in unison. They're that brainwashed.
    Rachel Mcledvedderman has an awesome ring to it. She will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine.
    Back in line! Let's duel!
  • InHiding80
    InHiding80 Upland,CA Posts: 7,623
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15D08J

    Of course there will be zero outrage from the Benghazzi cry babies because Hillary isn't a WMA republican. Blood is on your hands asshole.
  • BS44325
    BS44325 Posts: 6,124

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15D08J

    Of course there will be zero outrage from the Benghazzi cry babies because Hillary isn't a WMA republican. Blood is on your hands asshole.

    Military personnel can unfortunately die during missions. There is no comparison between this and an Ambassador being killed. I'm also pretty sure that Trump isn't blaming this tragedy on a video.
  • http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15D08J

    Of course there will be zero outrage from the Benghazzi cry babies because Hillary isn't a WMA republican. Blood is on your hands asshole.

    I'm not sure why there is 'outrage' anytime a soldier is killed doing soldierly things? It's as if people don't think their soldiers are going to die in combat. Further, especially in the Middle East, it's as if they have not stopped to think about the very favourable ratio of enemies (I'll use this term to describe 'all' dead at their hands) killed in action compared to their own casualties.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
This discussion has been closed.