53%? 61%? what number is substantial and who decides who gets to enter the country and who doesn't?
why do you only work in absolutes?
It doesn't have to be 'everyone', just 'substantial percentage'
The price we pay as a society in exchange for our liberties. Do you think we can stop this from ever happening again? How would we accomplish that?
why do you only work in absolutes?
It doesn't have to be 'everyone', just 'substantial percentage'
I'd say try to be less of a dick, but I'm pretty sure you're dickless to begin with.
Country of origin, yea, that will work
So no muslims in canada or england or france
no wonder you're so enamored of drumpf
I understand full well what Obama said and the context in which it was said....and it's complete horse shit. Those resisting Syrian immigration are not in any way "scared of widows and 3-years old orphans" as Obama asserts, the reality is that most want to be assured that we have effective vetting processes in place to assure that we don't inadvertently admit terrorists into the country. Is his hyperbolic rhetoric and blatantly dishonest framing of this issue really that hard to understand?
I'm working with the absolute here because the high IQ poster I quoted specifically implied that you can identify Muslims by their country of origin as if it's some sort of fool-proof method.
It's still not Islam in general, more the radical side of it of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQHBpIG6fcE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kae-nng77yE
The indoctrination in the ME, that Daesh was born from, has been going on a long time of course.
It goes back to to the Crusades, at least.
The only thing that has changed is the way attacks are carried out, and the radical extremists of many populations being mixed and interacting globally in many countries.
They never said the current laws make no difference. They are saying stricter laws probably would not be effective.no, just that we shouldn't enforce those laws because
a) they make no difference
Some things are "too hard" to implement. You can't hand-wave away the logistics necessary, not to mention all the freedoms that would need to be trampled. You a big fan of the TSA?b) it's too hard
orly?no, they didn't say anything of the sortI'm working with the absolute here because the high IQ poster I quoted specifically implied that you can identify Muslims by their country of origin as if it's some sort of fool-proof method.
only your bias caused you to interpret it that way
Country of origin, try to keep upbecause nobody would ever lie about their religious affiliations, and you can ID muslims by their skin tone or accent, right?
If you're not seeing the fear, then I'm not sure what you're reading here or who you have on ignore.
They never said the current laws make no difference. They are saying stricter laws probably would not be effective.
Some things are "too hard" to implement. You can't hand-wave away the logistics necessary, not to mention all the freedoms that would need to be trampled. You a big fan of the TSA?
orly?
Stricter laws would not be effective because they won't be enforced, just like existing ones.
what freedoms need to be 'trampled' to have better border control?
Well if we are talking about restricting access to Muslims, freedom of religion for starters.
where did it say '100% effective'?
Everyone realizes you can't block them all, but you can certainly cut the flow substantially.
ftfy
()
The UAE and a lot of countries in the ME are well aware that oil sales might drop off in the future, much of the money they've been floating in since the 50's has been reinvested.
1. Doesn't apply to people who aren't in the country
2. It's not based on religion, it's based on country of origin
AFAIK, it was on the departure level near the ticketing counters. That area generally falls outside the security perimeter.Is there any information on how they got the explosives through security and if there's any update in security protocol that could reduce the risk of this happening again?
At that time about 1/2 of the governors in this country were expressing serious concerns regarding the issue of Syrian refugees. Obviously Christie's off-hand comment was stupid, but it certainly doesn't speak for all the governors concerned about our vetting process. And for Obama to dishonestly characterize the concerns expressed by these governors (as well as the general public) with such a condescending anecdotal is dishonest, divisive, and combative. He's one of the worst presidents ever imo.Then why did Christie state he is opposed to allowing "orphans under five years old" into the country? That is the context of Obama's remark. If you're going to take a position that irrational, you open yourself up to the kind of response we saw from Obama. I'd expect nothing less from the right if Obama took a position that ridiculous.
At that time about 1/2 of the governors in this country were expressing serious concerns regarding the issue of Syrian refugees. Obviously Christie's off-hand comment was stupid, but it certainly doesn't speak for all the governors concerned about our vetting process. And for Obama to dishonestly characterize the concerns expressed by these governors (as well as the general public) with such a condescending anecdotal is dishonest, divisive, and combative. He's one of the worst presidents ever imo.
AFAIK, it was on the departure level near the ticketing counters. That area generally falls outside the security perimeter.
He said you can identify Muslims by their country of origin. If there is a single Syrian Christian, his statement is false because you would need more than just their country of origin. Understand now?
Best get a new energy supply going.