COLUMN: The Left Becomes Vicious Because POLITICS IS THEIR RELIGION

[2aguy]

Steph....you ignoring me doesn't effect me. It effects you.

All I'm doing is quoting your ilk accurately and in context. If you don't want to see the hateful shit your fellow fringe conservatives post, then don't. But its not like the rest of us are similarly bound to ignore calls for mass deporations of American citizens (deport to where has always been an interesting question), mass executions of Americans or the stripping of American's rights by your ilk.

my ilk. right there I stopped reading your dribble/spew. the only thing you're doing is showing what a uppity snob you are. who want's to read something by someone who believe they are better than everyone else. I'm sure I'm not the only one who ignores you

Ilk means a type of people or things similar to those already referred to. So if I'm referring to 'fringe right wing ilk' I'm talking of people who are fringe right wing.

But you're always looking for an excuse to stop reading. Its kind of you baseline position. My concern for conservatives is how often this mentality appears in the way they approach the world. Where they listen to what they agree with and always look for an excuse to stop listening to anything that doesn't ape what they already believe.

Its called 'confirmation bias'. And its an awful way of viewing the world.

Awful way of viewing the world..........Perhaps the same could be said of you?

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

You and your ilk would take the risk that ISIS has come in with the refugees.....

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

.....Some from your side say it is an acceptable risk that we must take................I disagree......................Until they can be vetted COMPLETELY and have Minimized the Risk to the greatest extent I'm not for bringing them in.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

Why shouldn't we create more security measures, especially over there.

Exactly, set up refugee camps in the middle east. They won't have to travel far, they are used to the area, and when it is time to go home they can get there faster......we can help pay for it, and it actually makes sense....

But...democrats won't let any possible vote go to waste, so they want these people to travel across the ocean, away from their homes so they can vote in democrat precincts in 2016.........

 

[Stephanie]

Am I a member of the ilk club? I always wanted to be a ilk!

I wonder how we know if we are ilk? does it take the snobs from the Democrat party to judge it? pfeeeesh. I can't stand people who looks down on others in that manner. and again the only thing he did is prove the article right about liberals and their politics. it's a sad damn life in my book

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Am I a member of the ilk club? I always wanted to be a ilk!

I wonder how we know if we are ilk? does it take the snobs from the Democrat party to judge it? pfeeeesh. I can't stand people who looks down on others in that manner

Liberal "elitists" are hilarious, they fancy themselves in an ivory tower, knowers of all and shall deem what is righteous and good...while they can't tie their own shoes w/o the government telling them when and how

 

[Skylar]

Steph....you ignoring me doesn't effect me. It effects you.

All I'm doing is quoting your ilk accurately and in context. If you don't want to see the hateful shit your fellow fringe conservatives post, then don't. But its not like the rest of us are similarly bound to ignore calls for mass deporations of American citizens (deport to where has always been an interesting question), mass executions of Americans or the stripping of American's rights by your ilk.

my ilk. right there I stopped reading your dribble/spew. the only thing you're doing is showing what a uppity snob you are. who want's to read something by someone who believe they are better than everyone else. I'm sure I'm not the only one who ignores you

Ilk means a type of people or things similar to those already referred to. So if I'm referring to 'fringe right wing ilk' I'm talking of people who are fringe right wing.

But you're always looking for an excuse to stop reading. Its kind of you baseline position. My concern for conservatives is how often this mentality appears in the way they approach the world. Where they listen to what they agree with and always look for an excuse to stop listening to anything that doesn't ape what they already believe.

Its called 'confirmation bias'. And its an awful way of viewing the world.

Awful way of viewing the world..........Perhaps the same could be said of you?

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

You and your ilk would take the risk that ISIS has come in with the refugees.....

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

.....Some from your side say it is an acceptable risk that we must take................I disagree......................Until they can be vetted COMPLETELY and have Minimized the Risk to the greatest extent I'm not for bringing them in.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

 

[2aguy]

my ilk. right there I stopped reading your dribble/spew. the only thing you're doing is showing what a uppity snob you are. who want's to read something by someone who believe they are better than everyone else. I'm sure I'm not the only one who ignores you

Ilk means a type of people or things similar to those already referred to. So if I'm referring to 'fringe right wing ilk' I'm talking of people who are fringe right wing.

But you're always looking for an excuse to stop reading. Its kind of you baseline position. My concern for conservatives is how often this mentality appears in the way they approach the world. Where they listen to what they agree with and always look for an excuse to stop listening to anything that doesn't ape what they already believe.

Its called 'confirmation bias'. And its an awful way of viewing the world.

Awful way of viewing the world..........Perhaps the same could be said of you?

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

You and your ilk would take the risk that ISIS has come in with the refugees.....

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

.....Some from your side say it is an acceptable risk that we must take................I disagree......................Until they can be vetted COMPLETELY and have Minimized the Risk to the greatest extent I'm not for bringing them in.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Is there a reason they can't be housed in the middle east? You know...where they actually live. Why do they have to cross an ocean instead of staying in the area where they are familiar with the place, and can go back when the crap is settled.....?

 

[Skylar]

Am I a member of the ilk club? I always wanted to be a ilk!

I wonder how we know if we are ilk? does it take the snobs from the Democrat party to judge it? pfeeeesh. I can't stand people who looks down on others in that manner

Liberal "elitists" are hilarious, they fancy themselves in an ivory tower, knowers of all and shall deem what is righteous and good...while they can't tie their own shoes w/o the government telling them when and how

Laughing...'elitists' being anyone who actually studies the issue and has an informed opinion rather than repeating whatever predigested script Breitbart or World Net Daily is spewing on any given day?

If so, I'm happy to disappoint you.

 

[Skylar]

Ilk means a type of people or things similar to those already referred to. So if I'm referring to 'fringe right wing ilk' I'm talking of people who are fringe right wing.

But you're always looking for an excuse to stop reading. Its kind of you baseline position. My concern for conservatives is how often this mentality appears in the way they approach the world. Where they listen to what they agree with and always look for an excuse to stop listening to anything that doesn't ape what they already believe.

Its called 'confirmation bias'. And its an awful way of viewing the world.

Awful way of viewing the world..........Perhaps the same could be said of you?

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

You and your ilk would take the risk that ISIS has come in with the refugees.....

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

.....Some from your side say it is an acceptable risk that we must take................I disagree......................Until they can be vetted COMPLETELY and have Minimized the Risk to the greatest extent I'm not for bringing them in.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Is there a reason they can't be housed in the middle east? You know...where they actually live. Why do they have to cross an ocean instead of staying in the area where they are familiar with the place, and can go back when the crap is settled.....?

Oh Eagle.....there's your 'strawman' again. The argument you insisted wasn't being made. Being made yet again by your ilk.

With you now giving us excuses why we shouldn't allow *any* Syrian refugees into the country. The very position I attributed to fringe right conservatives and you insisted was a 'strawman'.

Perhaps 'strawman' doesn't mean what you think it means. The words you're looking for are 'accurate representation'.

 

[Stephanie]

Am I a member of the ilk club? I always wanted to be a ilk!

I wonder how we know if we are ilk? does it take the snobs from the Democrat party to judge it? pfeeeesh. I can't stand people who looks down on others in that manner

Liberal "elitists" are hilarious, they fancy themselves in an ivory tower, knowers of all and shall deem what is righteous and good...while they can't tie their own shoes w/o the government telling them when and how

what I love is how they claim they are so tolerant. well, they flunked that in this thread too. they just can't help themselves. Liberalism is a mental disorder= if you aren't mental when you become one, it seems to be if you follow like a cult member for years, it drives them into mental instability.. that's my observations from the 10 year being on this board.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Am I a member of the ilk club? I always wanted to be a ilk!

I wonder how we know if we are ilk? does it take the snobs from the Democrat party to judge it? pfeeeesh. I can't stand people who looks down on others in that manner

Liberal "elitists" are hilarious, they fancy themselves in an ivory tower, knowers of all and shall deem what is righteous and good...while they can't tie their own shoes w/o the government telling them when and how

what I love is how they claim they are so tolerant. well, they flunked that in this thread too. they just can't help themselves. Liberalism is a mental disorder= if you aren't mental when you become one, it seems to be if you follow like a cult member for years, it drives them into mental instability.. that's my observations from the 10 year being on this board.

I've been on forums for around 11 years...I know exactly what you are saying.

 

[eagle1462010]

my ilk. right there I stopped reading your dribble/spew. the only thing you're doing is showing what a uppity snob you are. who want's to read something by someone who believe they are better than everyone else. I'm sure I'm not the only one who ignores you

Ilk means a type of people or things similar to those already referred to. So if I'm referring to 'fringe right wing ilk' I'm talking of people who are fringe right wing.

But you're always looking for an excuse to stop reading. Its kind of you baseline position. My concern for conservatives is how often this mentality appears in the way they approach the world. Where they listen to what they agree with and always look for an excuse to stop listening to anything that doesn't ape what they already believe.

Its called 'confirmation bias'. And its an awful way of viewing the world.

Awful way of viewing the world..........Perhaps the same could be said of you?

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

You and your ilk would take the risk that ISIS has come in with the refugees.....

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

.....Some from your side say it is an acceptable risk that we must take................I disagree......................Until they can be vetted COMPLETELY and have Minimized the Risk to the greatest extent I'm not for bringing them in.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Your an Obama drone............9000 targets hit in 18 months. In the Gulf War we hit 48000 targets in 6 weeks. Taking out ISIS in Syria only lacks the resolve to do so........and that would mean ground troops.......but it would end the problem and it could have been over a long time ago...............Obama ignores the military on these issues, and many are retiring early because they can't stomach serving under Obama anymore. Or they are retired off the record for privately disagreeing with the one.

We are nit picking targets..........PERIOD.............and our main goal has been to fund those to topple Assad......forcing this mess to go on forever.................

The only one lacking understanding here is you and your ilk.............I'm liking that term here..............Obama is a failure

The refugee crisis is because we refuse to Win the danged thing because it is not the administrations primary goal. So it drags on ensuring more refugees and more deaths there.

Vetting............how the hell do you vett them..........a crystal ball.......they are displaced......and there is no way to properly vett them from the get go............Intel agencies are saying as much.........

House them in place..........destroy ISIS.....and shit or get off the pot.

 

[eagle1462010]

Am I a member of the ilk club? I always wanted to be a ilk!

I wonder how we know if we are ilk? does it take the snobs from the Democrat party to judge it? pfeeeesh. I can't stand people who looks down on others in that manner. and again the only thing he did is prove the article right about liberals and their politics. it's a sad damn life in my book

I'm proud to be part of our ilk and not their ilk.

 

[Skylar]

Ilk means a type of people or things similar to those already referred to. So if I'm referring to 'fringe right wing ilk' I'm talking of people who are fringe right wing.

But you're always looking for an excuse to stop reading. Its kind of you baseline position. My concern for conservatives is how often this mentality appears in the way they approach the world. Where they listen to what they agree with and always look for an excuse to stop listening to anything that doesn't ape what they already believe.

Its called 'confirmation bias'. And its an awful way of viewing the world.

Awful way of viewing the world..........Perhaps the same could be said of you?

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

You and your ilk would take the risk that ISIS has come in with the refugees.....

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

.....Some from your side say it is an acceptable risk that we must take................I disagree......................Until they can be vetted COMPLETELY and have Minimized the Risk to the greatest extent I'm not for bringing them in.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Your an Obama drone............9000 targets hit in 18 months. In the Gulf War we hit 48000 targets in 6 weeks.

This is clearly not on the scale of the Gulf War. As you can probably tell by the lack of preparations for a land invasion.

Taking out ISIS in Syria only lacks the resolve to do so........and that would mean ground troops.......but it would end the problem and it could have been over a long time ago...............Obama ignores the military on these issues, and many are retiring early because they can't stomach serving under Obama anymore. Or they are retired off the record for privately disagreeing with the one.

And by resolve....you mean yet another war in the middle east?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you mean by 'accurate' and 'complete' vetting is. I suspect I nailed it perfectly with my description of absolute, perfect and imaginary standards.

 

[eagle1462010]

Awful way of viewing the world..........Perhaps the same could be said of you?

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

You and your ilk would take the risk that ISIS has come in with the refugees.....

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

.....Some from your side say it is an acceptable risk that we must take................I disagree......................Until they can be vetted COMPLETELY and have Minimized the Risk to the greatest extent I'm not for bringing them in.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Is there a reason they can't be housed in the middle east? You know...where they actually live. Why do they have to cross an ocean instead of staying in the area where they are familiar with the place, and can go back when the crap is settled.....?

Oh Eagle.....there's your 'strawman' again. The argument you insisted wasn't being made. Being made yet again by your ilk.

With you now giving us excuses why we shouldn't allow *any* Syrian refugees into the country. The very position I attributed to fringe right conservatives and you insisted was a 'strawman'.

Perhaps 'strawman' doesn't mean what you think it means. The words you're looking for are 'accurate representation'.

aka you want them here.........PERIOD..............I'm sure there are some that could possibly vett them better than now........if not...........NONE COME..............

It is a Security RIsk............PERIOD...........we don't need it...............PERIOD............house them in place.......if someone comes up with a better way to vett them..............then maybe....until then...........we don't need the problem here.......

Your ilk just want more voters..............LOL

 

[Skylar]

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Is there a reason they can't be housed in the middle east? You know...where they actually live. Why do they have to cross an ocean instead of staying in the area where they are familiar with the place, and can go back when the crap is settled.....?

Oh Eagle.....there's your 'strawman' again. The argument you insisted wasn't being made. Being made yet again by your ilk.

With you now giving us excuses why we shouldn't allow *any* Syrian refugees into the country. The very position I attributed to fringe right conservatives and you insisted was a 'strawman'.

Perhaps 'strawman' doesn't mean what you think it means. The words you're looking for are 'accurate representation'.

aka you want them here.........PERIOD..............I'm sure there are some that could possibly vett them better than now........if not...........NONE COME..............

I want them here after they're vetted. Those that don't pass the vetting process can't come.

What about that do you disagree with?

It is a Security RIsk............PERIOD...........we don't need it...............PERIOD............house them in place.......if someone comes up with a better way to vett them..............then maybe....until then...........we don't need the problem here.......

Your ilk just want more voters..............LOL

So much for your 'strawman'. As your position is now *exactly* what I described for fringe right wingers. Just with a lot more ellipses.

 

[eagle1462010]

Awful way of viewing the world..........Perhaps the same could be said of you?

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

You and your ilk would take the risk that ISIS has come in with the refugees.....

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

.....Some from your side say it is an acceptable risk that we must take................I disagree......................Until they can be vetted COMPLETELY and have Minimized the Risk to the greatest extent I'm not for bringing them in.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Your an Obama drone............9000 targets hit in 18 months. In the Gulf War we hit 48000 targets in 6 weeks.

This is clearly not on the scale of the Gulf War. As you can probably tell by the lack of preparations for a land invasion.

Taking out ISIS in Syria only lacks the resolve to do so........and that would mean ground troops.......but it would end the problem and it could have been over a long time ago...............Obama ignores the military on these issues, and many are retiring early because they can't stomach serving under Obama anymore. Or they are retired off the record for privately disagreeing with the one.

And by resolve....you mean yet another war in the middle east?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you mean by 'accurate' and 'complete' vetting is. I suspect I nailed it perfectly with my description of absolute, perfect and imaginary standards.

We have forces in the region and they can be deployed.........ISIS max strength has been estimated at 50k to the best sources........

Proper vetting...........sure isn't put them in a camp for a year and go DONE...............like your side is saying.............You refuse to engage on holding them in place.........and refuse to ditch Obama's policy on removing Assad............and refuse to accept boots on the ground to end the damned problem..................

But lets bring them here so some can slip in and shoot up a mall one day............that possibility is just lives your are willing to risk to say LOOK WHAT OUR ILK HAS DONE................lame assed ilk.

 

[eagle1462010]

One more point about Liberals.......They are a ideology of EXCUSES...............refuse to engage on issues that suck like Obama's foreign policy failures....................then after 7 years in office still blame others for their own fuck ups....................

Speaks volumes............but hey.............Assad must go and ensure more refugees...........

 

[Skylar]

How so? I don't ignore a source based on its agreement with me. I don't list excuses for why I'm NOT going to be reading something. A source's validity has nothing to do with whether or not it agrees with me.

Didn't you argue that they should be vetted first just a few posts back? And now you're condemning allowing refugees in the country only after they're vetted?

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail. As you're condemning and adopting the same position.

And what, pray tell, is 'complete vetting'? Remembering of course that the absolute, snuggle security that you're looking for doesn't actually exist in the real world.

We have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now....................Under that environment allowing them in is a Security issue. There are other options other than taking them in, but your side......your ilk is against those options..........nor will you condemn the policy of Obama that drags it on.

Why? Why do we have no reason to trust the vetting as it is done now?

And what 'other options' are there? Your fantasy about ISIS disappearing in 18 months? Really?

There is no way to currently ACCURATELY VET ANY OF THEM........that by no means is the end of the equation..........others must come up with a better way to finally go that route even if it takes a much longer time to do so................

What do you mean by 'accurately'? What do you mean by 'completely'. I ask you to elaborate on these terms, and you get even more vague.

Is it because what you're demanding is a *perfect* vetting process? One that provides absolute, child like, ivory tower security in which no harm can *ever* befall us? One that doesn't actually exist in the real world, ever?

If no, then explain what you mean. But your avoidance of the topic speaks volumes.

Chasing own tail.........LOL..............Your closed mind is a continuous loop in your hollow head..........I refuse to accept the risk associated with this which Obama has made WORSE because of his policy.

With the policy you want in its place being your fantasy that if 'only' Obama would give up on getting rid of Assad, that ISIS would magically disappear in 18 months?

Um.....no.

Your an Obama drone............9000 targets hit in 18 months. In the Gulf War we hit 48000 targets in 6 weeks.

This is clearly not on the scale of the Gulf War. As you can probably tell by the lack of preparations for a land invasion.

Taking out ISIS in Syria only lacks the resolve to do so........and that would mean ground troops.......but it would end the problem and it could have been over a long time ago...............Obama ignores the military on these issues, and many are retiring early because they can't stomach serving under Obama anymore. Or they are retired off the record for privately disagreeing with the one.

And by resolve....you mean yet another war in the middle east?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you mean by 'accurate' and 'complete' vetting is. I suspect I nailed it perfectly with my description of absolute, perfect and imaginary standards.

We have forces in the region and they can be deployed.........ISIS max strength has been estimated at 50k to the best sources........

What 'forces' specifically? You're getting really, really vague for a reason.

Proper vetting...........sure isn't put them in a camp for a year and go DONE...............like your side is saying.............You refuse to engage on holding them in place.........and refuse to ditch Obama's policy on removing Assad............and refuse to accept boots on the ground to end the damned problem..................

And what is 'proper' vetting? Like 'accurate vetting' and 'complete vetting', is this a term you will refuse to explain as well?

Once again, you get vague. Why?

 

[Skylar]

One more point about Liberals.......They are a ideology of EXCUSES...............refuse to engage on issues that suck like Obama's foreign policy failures....................then after 7 years in office still blame others for their own fuck ups....................

Speaks volumes............but hey.............Assad must go and ensure more refugees...........

Far from refusing to discuss it, I've asked you at least 5 times to describe what you mean. What is 'proper vetting' for example? What 'forces' do you think should be deployed?

You simply refuse to offer any concrete, specific answer.....getting vaguer the harder I press you for specifics.

 

[bodecea]

boy oh boy, this article go some panites all bunched up on a few people. hit a nerve? guilty conscious? see's oneself in it. seems so

Laughing.......so when I quote your ilk calling for mass executions of millions of Americans, its because I want mass executions of millions of Americans? When I quote fringe right conservatives calling for Americans to have their rights stripped from them and then be deported by the millions, its because *I* want to do it?

Um, no. Try again.

Staphanie sure wants to defend those who say such things, doesn't she?

 

[bodecea]

Am I a member of the ilk club? I always wanted to be a ilk!

I wonder how we know if we are ilk? does it take the snobs from the Democrat party to judge it? pfeeeesh. I can't stand people who looks down on others in that manner

Liberal "elitists" are hilarious, they fancy themselves in an ivory tower, knowers of all and shall deem what is righteous and good...while they can't tie their own shoes w/o the government telling them when and how

Right...we know you hate educated people, Bi-Catfish.