Redheaded Stepchild Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 8 hours ago, Cold War said: I was watching a report yesterday on how Canadians love their Syrian refugees. Opening their homes and hearts to all that want to come. How many are you guys taking in? None. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 4 hours ago, Back Country Rebel said: What an idiot. Yes , Iceman is a complete fucking idiot. Not wanting unborn babies slaughtered = allowing legal rape of woman complete fucking moron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEMAN! Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 21 hours ago, f7ben said: Yes , Iceman is a complete fucking idiot. Not wanting unborn babies slaughtered = allowing legal rape of woman complete fucking moron Lol okay, not sure where I said that but whatever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 21, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 21, 2017 On 2/20/2017 at 7:32 AM, revkevsdi said: You are against women and children escaping these regimes? Are you also against them escaping from cities that have been bombed to rubble? Do you identify as Christian? How do you reconcile your hatred of others with your Christianity? So where is the balance? We should just take everyone who lives under oppression or should we remove the oppressors? Isn't both the "Christian" thing to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 If we have a choice of two families One the patriarch of the family believes women are property and subservient. He also believes in honour killings should his daughter not obey him dutifully. The other the father of the family treasures all the members of his family equally and respects them as equals, doesn't believe in honour killings and respects his daughters right to choose their own path in life. Do we just take the first family because they got here illegally and jumped the line or do we deport him and his family and take in the second who applied through the proper and legal channels. Right now the second family sits on a waiting list where they just got a setback because the first family jumped the line illegally. Now we have the dumbass politicians in Montreal declaring they are a sanctuary city and will give the illegals a hug and welcome them over those who get here legally. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, 02sled said: If we have a choice of two families One the patriarch of the family believes women are property and subservient. He also believes in honour killings should his daughter not obey him dutifully. The other the father of the family treasures all the members of his family equally and respects them as equals, doesn't believe in honour killings and respects his daughters right to choose their own path in life. Do we just take the first family because they got here illegally and jumped the line or do we deport him and his family and take in the second who applied through the proper and legal channels. Right now the second family sits on a waiting list where they just got a setback because the first family jumped the line illegally. Now we have the dumbass politicians in Montreal declaring they are a sanctuary city and will give the illegals a hug and welcome them over those who get here legally. Trumps ban is stopping the people who have gone through the proper channels. From countries where immigrants have not committed terrorist attacks in the US. Edited February 22, 2017 by revkevsdi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 30 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: Trumps ban is stopping the people who have gone through the proper channels. From countries where immigrants have not committed terrorist attacks in the US. You don't know what in the fuck you are talking about. Shit the fuck up and go cry...pussy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 22, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 22, 2017 51 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: Trumps ban is stopping the people who have gone through the proper channels. From countries where immigrants have not committed terrorist attacks in the US. Then why did Obama deem those exact same countries an issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, Highmark said: Then why did Obama deem those exact same countries an issue? I'd love to answer...it's so easy because it's been all over REAL news sources. But let's see if they can figure it out. "Give a man a fish....." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 3 hours ago, revkevsdi said: Trumps ban is stopping the people who have gone through the proper channels. From countries where immigrants have not committed terrorist attacks in the US. Wake up. TEMPORARY ban. The purpose of which is to review and enhance the vetting process to make sure anyone getting in has been closely checked. Don't try and tell me the current process is working. If it was the US wouldn't have so many illegal immigrants. Just look at the illegal immigrants walking across the border illegally into Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEMAN! Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 8 hours ago, 02sled said: Wake up. TEMPORARY ban. The purpose of which is to review and enhance the vetting process to make sure anyone getting in has been closely checked. Don't try and tell me the current process is working. If it was the US wouldn't have so many illegal immigrants. Just look at the illegal immigrants walking across the border illegally into Canada Wut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry ginger Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 21 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said: Wut? x2 SMH at the complete lack of logic in the second half of that post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 2 hours ago, ICEMAN! said: Wut? As usual you're oblivious to fact and only see what you want to see ignoring what doesn't suit your agenda. The ban Trump put in place was for 120 days. Not forever, The plan would stop all refugee admissions for 120 days and suspend until further notice all refugee admissions from Syria, where a nearly six-year-long civil war has created a massive humanitarian crisis. Once resumed after 120 days, the U.S. refugee program, the draft said, will accept 50,000 people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Angry ginger said: x2 SMH at the complete lack of logic in the second half of that post. Once again your stupidity and lack of comprehension is obvious. If the current screening process and vetting of people entering the US was working they wouldn't have the number of illegal immigrants that started out as i.e. Syrian refugees that they do. The smack you in the face evidence is the "illegal immigrants" originally from places like Syria now leaving the US because of concern of being deported by walking across the border into Canada where the bleeding heart politicians will give them a hug even though they are ignoring the Canadian immigration laws. Did you really graduate from high school? Edited February 22, 2017 by 02sled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEMAN! Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 lol 02sled is such a clueless dimwit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Damn Crushedice can you be any more of an idiot.... you are so out of touch with reality it's painful. Keep ignoring fact as usual and dreaming up your fantasies. Let's here your definition of an illegal immigrant and a refugee and how the two differ. God you're a hopeless borderline illiterate. You can read but sure as hell not understand what you read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 22, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Zambroski said: I'd love to answer...it's so easy because it's been all over REAL news sources. But let's see if they can figure it out. "Give a man a fish....." I'll answer it for them. See they get so stuck on past terrorist threats and not what CURRENT Intel suggests are places of concern. It was OK for Obama to point out these countries but not Trump. Restrictions from Obama years broadened to a ban In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters." The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/ Web release from the Obama admin. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program The addition of these three countries is indicative of the Department’s continued focus on the threat of foreign fighters. Edited February 22, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 On 2017-02-22 at 8:29 AM, Highmark said: I'll answer it for them. See they get so stuck on past terrorist threats and not what CURRENT Intel suggests are places of concern. It was OK for Obama to point out these countries but not Trump. Restrictions from Obama years broadened to a ban In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters." The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/ Web release from the Obama admin. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program The addition of these three countries is indicative of the Department’s continued focus on the threat of foreign fighters. More false equivalency for the alt right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.