A Political question...based on Current Events

[Katzndogz]

Isis goal is to spread throughout the world. Accepting the refugees is accepting Isis.

Isis wins.

 

[rightwinger]

So what has ISIS accomplished with their Paris attack?
Fear

Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees are fleeing from ISIS. They are seeking a safe haven. By infiltrating the refugees and executing a terrorist attack, ISIS is doing exactly what they want ....using fear to turn away refugees

ISIS wins

Have you been drinking all night?

What is your solution other than caving in to iSIS and cowering in fear?

Let the refugees die because you are afraid?

Feel free to travel to the Middle East and fight the terrorists for them. When it comes down to a choice of Americans dying or them dying, I pick them every time.

It is easy to win battles when you attack innocent civilians, it is what ISIS does best

In terms of their dream of establishing an Islamic state, that dream is gone

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That's a poem from another time. It's not a basis for rational government policy in the 21st century.

Bet you feel the same way about the Constitution.

No, that's how liberals feel. The Constitution isn't a poem. It's the law of the land.

If only we had a President who would live up to his oath of office....

...and an electorate who cared.

 

[rightwinger]

Isis goal is to spread throughout the world. Accepting the refugees is accepting Isis.

Isis wins.

ISIS wants to establish an Islamic dream state. What Israel is to Jews. A state where Muslims flock to settle

The fact that Muslims are streaming out of the country does not fit their agenda

Republicans side with ISIS and turn refugees away.....ISIS wins

 

[Sallow]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That's a poem from another time. It's not a basis for rational government policy in the 21st century.

Bet you feel the same way about the Constitution.

No, that's how liberals feel. The Constitution isn't a poem. It's the law of the land.

The Constitution supports immigration.

 

[bripat9643]

So what has ISIS accomplished with their Paris attack?
Fear

Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees are fleeing from ISIS. They are seeking a safe haven. By infiltrating the refugees and executing a terrorist attack, ISIS is doing exactly what they want ....using fear to turn away refugees

ISIS wins

Have you been drinking all night?

What is your solution other than caving in to iSIS and cowering in fear?

Let the refugees die because you are afraid?

Feel free to travel to the Middle East and fight the terrorists for them. When it comes down to a choice of Americans dying or them dying, I pick them every time.

It is easy to win battles when you attack innocent civilians, it is what ISIS does best

In terms of their dream of establishing an Islamic state, that dream is gone

What does that have to do with allowing the Muzzie savages admittance to our country? If it's so easy to eliminate ISIS, then why hasn't Obama done it?

 

[bripat9643]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That's a poem from another time. It's not a basis for rational government policy in the 21st century.

Bet you feel the same way about the Constitution.

No, that's how liberals feel. The Constitution isn't a poem. It's the law of the land.

The Constitution supports immigration.

It does no such thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Wooooo, Scary brown people.

Looking at Paris, Fear is the rational response, you fool.

Not really. France has taken in less than 5000 refugees from Syria. They were not the ones who attacked on friday.

When they start identifying these guys, you are going to find out they are Algerians who have lived in France for Generations and are still an economic underclass.

 

[blackhawk]

I hear those on the left including those on the debate stage say we have to allow Syrian refugees in the country for humanitarian reasons but that they must be throughly vetted to keep radical terrorist from slipping in with them. You will have tens of thousands of people coming in from a war torn nation how will you be able to check all of them throughly enough to know who is who? Given we can't control who comes across our Southern border now it doesn't seem logical to believe we could do it with Syrian refugees.

 

[jasonnfree]

There have been terrorist attacks by muslim extremists since before isis. Because of self preservation, I vote no refugees. Let the saudis and other oil rich muslim countries take care of them. They have plenty of money and space to help fellow muslims. Besides, we have many poor Americans that need help, and limited resources to help them as it is. Self preservation.

 

[Sallow]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

And I open my neck to their barbarity and deceit.

View attachment 54785

It was American Conservatives that gave us barbarity and deceit.

Yeah, because there was no Islamic terrorist before Bush Invaded Iraq . . . . . . er, no, that's not right.

Yup. There were.

They were initially funded by the Reagan administration and were mad that George HW Bush invaded Kuwait and had a base in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton tried to send covert operations to handle them after the Towers and the Cole but he was thwarted by a Congress bent on impeaching the Commander in Chief.

Bush the second was warned about the threat but completely ignored it and favored starting a new cold war with China and Russia.

After the 9/11 attacks he and the PNAC cowboys were made up his administration carried out a Conservative/Christian Theocratic/Oil Company wet dream and invaded Iraq using 9/11 as an excuse.

Any other stupid observations?

Just one. How about supporting your assertions?

What now? Do I get a cookie?

 

[Sallow]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

That's a poem from another time. It's not a basis for rational government policy in the 21st century.

Bet you feel the same way about the Constitution.

No, that's how liberals feel. The Constitution isn't a poem. It's the law of the land.

The Constitution supports immigration.

It does no such thing.

Sure it does.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It provides for naturalization and birth rights.

You really should pick it up and read it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is being revisited.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a poem from another time. It's not a basis for rational government policy in the 21st century.

Bet you feel the same way about the Constitution.

No, that's how liberals feel. The Constitution isn't a poem. It's the law of the land.

The Constitution supports immigration.

It does no such thing.

Sure it does.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It provides for naturalization and birth rights.

You really should pick it up and read it.

Meaning it allows the government to naturalize foreigners. That's not the same thing as "supporting" it. However, the clause that allows Congress to naturalize foreigners isn't found in the 14th Amendment. Its' found in Section 8.

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"​

Notice that it doesn't require the government to allow foreigners to become citizens. It allows Congress to do whatever it likes in that regard.

 

[bripat9643]

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is being revisited.

Yep, illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

 

[Iceweasel]

And I open my neck to their barbarity and deceit.

View attachment 54785

It was American Conservatives that gave us barbarity and deceit.

Yeah, because there was no Islamic terrorist before Bush Invaded Iraq . . . . . . er, no, that's not right.

Yup. There were.

They were initially funded by the Reagan administration and were mad that George HW Bush invaded Kuwait and had a base in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton tried to send covert operations to handle them after the Towers and the Cole but he was thwarted by a Congress bent on impeaching the Commander in Chief.

Bush the second was warned about the threat but completely ignored it and favored starting a new cold war with China and Russia.

After the 9/11 attacks he and the PNAC cowboys were made up his administration carried out a Conservative/Christian Theocratic/Oil Company wet dream and invaded Iraq using 9/11 as an excuse.

Any other stupid observations?

Just one. How about supporting your assertions?

What now? Do I get a cookie?

No, you get a bag of dicks. How about supporting your assertions and quit playing schoolgirl games? I'll make it easy for you since you feel the need for a smokescreen. Just support this one..
"Clinton tried to send covert operations to handle them after the Towers and the Cole but he was thwarted by a Congress bent on impeaching the Commander in Chief."

 

[pismoe]

Knowing what you know now, do you think the USA should take in refugees from Syria? If you do, how many should we allow?

NONE 'ASARATIS' , none at all !!

 

[asaratis]

"A Political question...based on Current Events"

That's the problem: the events in Paris are being made political, which is wrong and unwarranted – used as 'justification' by some to promote and advance their agenda of hate and bigotry toward Muslims.

You are sadly unenlightened. Politics is involved in any nation's decision to accept refugees. It is no wonder that you are laughed at on this forum.

...and the hatred is not toward Muslims in general. It is toward radical Muslims and their inbred terrorist posture.

Try reading some educational material instead of comic books and porn.

 

[alanbmx123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[asaratis]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

And I open my neck to their barbarity and deceit.

View attachment 54785

It was American Conservatives that gave us barbarity and deceit.

Yeah, because there was no Islamic terrorist before Bush Invaded Iraq . . . . . . er, no, that's not right.

Yup. There were.

They were initially funded by the Reagan administration and were mad that George HW Bush invaded Kuwait and had a base in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton tried to send covert operations to handle them after the Towers and the Cole but he was thwarted by a Congress bent on impeaching the Commander in Chief.

Bush the second was warned about the threat but completely ignored it and favored starting a new cold war with China and Russia.

After the 9/11 attacks he and the PNAC cowboys were made up his administration carried out a Conservative/Christian Theocratic/Oil Company wet dream and invaded Iraq using 9/11 as an excuse.

Any other stupid observations?

Foolish people tend to say foolish things. Islamic terrorism has existed for centuries. The Christian Crusades were attempts to combat Islamic terrorism...and they succeeded in beating them back. However, like a cancerous growth that is not entirely abated, it keeps coming back. With today's weak-kneed 'leaders, and today's weapons and communications, the task of defeating them again is exponentially magnified.

You are a foolish person.