How YOU should act now.

[Slade3200]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

Keep in mind that a million illegals voting for you doesn't count. Subtract those votes and it's clear that she got crushed.

How do you know a million illegals voted? Link please

 

[Slade3200]

Nothing is ever 100%. Are you saying unless we can create a 100% full proof system then we should not allow people into our country? What about travelers? Where is the line?

We have a very extensive vetting process set up, if you, or security analysts see holes or areas for improvement then let's talk about them and make it better. But when you have a mother and her children whose father was killed by Isis, that fled in fear of there lives, and this can be proven and traced, then perhaps we have the opportunity to help people like this... perhaps the people who we can't run a thorough and detailed background check on, or people with red flags, don't become refugees... does that sound reasonable?

We can allow immigrants and muslims from parts [Regions] of the world where terrorism is NOT a stronghold, encouraged, or thrives. We have to understand, the extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in '94, was involved in the San Bernardino shootings, or took control of our airliners on 9-11 don't care how compassionate we are or how welcoming we are to helping muslims. Their only concern is how they can infiltrate into the United States to kill American infidels (they don't even recognize us as citizens or innocent civilians) to further their beliefs in their extremist faith. There is no compromising with them, no noble peace prize, no amount of humanity that will alter their view of what they believe. Take the time and look at the killing that goes on of those who don't share their faith. Unless you believe as they do, they will continue to pursue their radical cause and use any "opportunity", open border, (no matter how small) to achieve it If you think I'm hard to convince, imagine those terrorist extremist that desire to inflict harm to civilians [stop and let that thought sink in] .... not military .... our elderly, women, and children ... within our own borders.

im not suggesting we try and reason, negotiate or sympathize with them. Im simply stating the simple fact that there is a distinction between these terrorist thugs and the Muslim community. Your statement while not completely untrue, blur the lines between good honest Muslims and the terrorist

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

 

[PredFan]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

You act as if it was a HUGE margin of victory. It wasn't. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic because a democracy would suck for everyone. The fact that a very slim margin of victory for Hillary occurred is insignificant.

I'm not challenging the validity of the election or the process that our republic uses. However it is a very significant fact that more people who live in this country thought that Hillary was the better choice for president.

Likely untrue, and even if true, it is an extremely thin margin. Insignificant.

It's not about the margin, it's about the volume. Whether it is slightly more or slightly less it still represents roughly the same amount of people that support Hillary than support Trump. He won by the rules, that should be respected, but it should not be dismissed that more people opposed him than supported him

Not only is it not enough if a victory to matter, but it is also very likely that she did not win the popular vote. Many absentee ballots around the country were not counted and the GOP generally dominates the absentee ballots.

But enough of that. Your point was that we should both sides act respectful and I can't argue with that. But I won't tolerate threats against the President, rioting in the streets, and I'll make fun of people who sorely deserve it. I will be respectful where it is deserved.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

We can allow immigrants and muslims from parts [Regions] of the world where terrorism is NOT a stronghold, encouraged, or thrives. We have to understand, the extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in '94, was involved in the San Bernardino shootings, or took control of our airliners on 9-11 don't care how compassionate we are or how welcoming we are to helping muslims. Their only concern is how they can infiltrate into the United States to kill American infidels (they don't even recognize us as citizens or innocent civilians) to further their beliefs in their extremist faith. There is no compromising with them, no noble peace prize, no amount of humanity that will alter their view of what they believe. Take the time and look at the killing that goes on of those who don't share their faith. Unless you believe as they do, they will continue to pursue their radical cause and use any "opportunity", open border, (no matter how small) to achieve it If you think I'm hard to convince, imagine those terrorist extremist that desire to inflict harm to civilians [stop and let that thought sink in] .... not military .... our elderly, women, and children ... within our own borders.

im not suggesting we try and reason, negotiate or sympathize with them. Im simply stating the simple fact that there is a distinction between these terrorist thugs and the Muslim community. Your statement while not completely untrue, blur the lines between good honest Muslims and the terrorist

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

I believe I've been more than crystal clear of my position. Without much of a response as to why we should allow ourselves to be vulnerable to areas of known terrorist threats. If you would rather do the humanitarian deed with no concern for the lives of those in this country, I'm not going to change your view. I explained the kind of ideology we are facing and that determination behind their view of those who don't share in their faith. I'm not going to be supportive of a policy I feel puts our nation at greater risk - never, no matter how you try to justify that risk.

 

[Slade3200]

im not suggesting we try and reason, negotiate or sympathize with them. Im simply stating the simple fact that there is a distinction between these terrorist thugs and the Muslim community. Your statement while not completely untrue, blur the lines between good honest Muslims and the terrorist

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

I believe I've been more than crystal clear of my position. Without much of a response as to why we should allow ourselves to be vulnerable to areas of known terrorist threats. If you would rather do the humanitarian deed with no concern for the lives of those in this country, I'm not going to change your view. I explained the kind of ideology we are facing and that determination behind their view of those who don't share in their faith. I'm not going to be supportive of a policy I feel puts our nation at greater risk - never, no matter how you try to justify that risk.

Immigaration is a core element of our country, it was how we were founded and how you and I came to be here. We were just lucky but what makes us deserve to be an American any more than anybody else? I realize this is a separate discussion so we don't need to dive into it. But I would like an answer about the Chicago scenario that I asked you about in my last post... if you would indulge me.

Also, during your time in the service, did you ever do humanitarian aid? Work with or interact with refugees or people who were fleeing for their lives? If so, what was that experience like?

 

[Norman]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

The rule is nonsense.

If there would have been Trump protests, they had called the participants extreme right wing racists.


I think we can afford to do the same except replace some words. We are witnessing an anti-democratic far left mob.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is all one needs to know about he anti-Trump children:

• The University of Michigan offered its traumatized students coloring books and Play-Doh to calm them. (Are its students in college or kindergarten?)
•  The University of Kansas reminded its stressed-out kids that therapy dogs, a regular campus feature, were available.
•  Cornell University, an Ivy League school, held a campus-wide “cry-in,” with officials handing out tissues and hot chocolate.
•  Tufts University offered its devastated students arts and crafts sessions. (OK, not kindergarten — more like summer camp.)
•  At campuses from elite Yale to Connecticut to Iowa and beyond, professors canceled classes and/or exams — either because students asked or because instructors were too distraught to teach.

 

[Slade3200]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

The rule is nonsense.

If there would have been Trump protests, they had called the participants extreme right wing racists.


I think we can afford to do the same except replace some words. We are witnessing an anti-democratic far left mob.

Agreed, about the thugs that are causing violence. The peaceful protesters have every right but I think it is poor sportsmanship and have posted thoughts about that in a different thread. I still stand by the virtue of the golden rule and say its principles apply. At some point the grown ups in this country need to start taking the high ground

 

[bripat9643]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

How did Obama act? Oh yeah . . . .

"You lost. We won, so go sit in the back and shut the fuck up."

Is that what you had in mind?

 

[bripat9643]

We can allow immigrants and muslims from parts [Regions] of the world where terrorism is NOT a stronghold, encouraged, or thrives. We have to understand, the extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in '94, was involved in the San Bernardino shootings, or took control of our airliners on 9-11 don't care how compassionate we are or how welcoming we are to helping muslims. Their only concern is how they can infiltrate into the United States to kill American infidels (they don't even recognize us as citizens or innocent civilians) to further their beliefs in their extremist faith. There is no compromising with them, no noble peace prize, no amount of humanity that will alter their view of what they believe. Take the time and look at the killing that goes on of those who don't share their faith. Unless you believe as they do, they will continue to pursue their radical cause and use any "opportunity", open border, (no matter how small) to achieve it If you think I'm hard to convince, imagine those terrorist extremist that desire to inflict harm to civilians [stop and let that thought sink in] .... not military .... our elderly, women, and children ... within our own borders.

im not suggesting we try and reason, negotiate or sympathize with them. Im simply stating the simple fact that there is a distinction between these terrorist thugs and the Muslim community. Your statement while not completely untrue, blur the lines between good honest Muslims and the terrorist

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

Our country is not an airline, so your analogy is absurd. Here's a more realistic analogy. Would you allow anyone to come into your house? Obviously not.

 

[bripat9643]

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

I believe I've been more than crystal clear of my position. Without much of a response as to why we should allow ourselves to be vulnerable to areas of known terrorist threats. If you would rather do the humanitarian deed with no concern for the lives of those in this country, I'm not going to change your view. I explained the kind of ideology we are facing and that determination behind their view of those who don't share in their faith. I'm not going to be supportive of a policy I feel puts our nation at greater risk - never, no matter how you try to justify that risk.

Immigaration is a core element of our country, it was how we were founded and how you and I came to be here. We were just lucky but what makes us deserve to be an American any more than anybody else? I realize this is a separate discussion so we don't need to dive into it. But I would like an answer about the Chicago scenario that I asked you about in my last post... if you would indulge me.

Also, during your time in the service, did you ever do humanitarian aid? Work with or interact with refugees or people who were fleeing for their lives? If so, what was that experience like?

The phrase "core element of our country" is bullshit propaganda. There is nothing about our country that requires us to allow immigration of any kind, period. Granted, we have allowed plenty of immigration, but that in no way obligates us to continue the practice. In the past we have shut down immigration for long periods of time.

 

[Meathead]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

I largely agree, but a bit of gloating is irresistible.

 

[Slade3200]

im not suggesting we try and reason, negotiate or sympathize with them. Im simply stating the simple fact that there is a distinction between these terrorist thugs and the Muslim community. Your statement while not completely untrue, blur the lines between good honest Muslims and the terrorist

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

Our country is not an airline, so your analogy is absurd. Here's a more realistic analogy. Would you allow anyone to come into your house? Obviously not.

Haha, somebodies private property is very different than a nation founded on immigration. Nice try, but your example is much further away than mine, how about you try answering the question

 

[Slade3200]

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

I believe I've been more than crystal clear of my position. Without much of a response as to why we should allow ourselves to be vulnerable to areas of known terrorist threats. If you would rather do the humanitarian deed with no concern for the lives of those in this country, I'm not going to change your view. I explained the kind of ideology we are facing and that determination behind their view of those who don't share in their faith. I'm not going to be supportive of a policy I feel puts our nation at greater risk - never, no matter how you try to justify that risk.

Immigaration is a core element of our country, it was how we were founded and how you and I came to be here. We were just lucky but what makes us deserve to be an American any more than anybody else? I realize this is a separate discussion so we don't need to dive into it. But I would like an answer about the Chicago scenario that I asked you about in my last post... if you would indulge me.

Also, during your time in the service, did you ever do humanitarian aid? Work with or interact with refugees or people who were fleeing for their lives? If so, what was that experience like?

The phrase "core element of our country" is bullshit propaganda. There is nothing about our country that requires us to allow immigration of any kind, period. Granted, we have allowed plenty of immigration, but that in no way obligates us to continue the practice. In the past we have shut down immigration for long periods of time.

How the fuck do you think any of us got here? Special souls hand picked by God?

 

[bripat9643]

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

Our country is not an airline, so your analogy is absurd. Here's a more realistic analogy. Would you allow anyone to come into your house? Obviously not.

Haha, somebodies private property is very different than a nation founded on immigration. Nice try, but your example is much further away than mine, how about you try answering the question

The nation wasn't founded on immigration. It was founded on freedom and justice. America is also not a business, which is what you tried to compare it to. However, it is our home. So that analogy is far more accurate.

 

[bripat9643]

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

I believe I've been more than crystal clear of my position. Without much of a response as to why we should allow ourselves to be vulnerable to areas of known terrorist threats. If you would rather do the humanitarian deed with no concern for the lives of those in this country, I'm not going to change your view. I explained the kind of ideology we are facing and that determination behind their view of those who don't share in their faith. I'm not going to be supportive of a policy I feel puts our nation at greater risk - never, no matter how you try to justify that risk.

Immigaration is a core element of our country, it was how we were founded and how you and I came to be here. We were just lucky but what makes us deserve to be an American any more than anybody else? I realize this is a separate discussion so we don't need to dive into it. But I would like an answer about the Chicago scenario that I asked you about in my last post... if you would indulge me.

Also, during your time in the service, did you ever do humanitarian aid? Work with or interact with refugees or people who were fleeing for their lives? If so, what was that experience like?

The phrase "core element of our country" is bullshit propaganda. There is nothing about our country that requires us to allow immigration of any kind, period. Granted, we have allowed plenty of immigration, but that in no way obligates us to continue the practice. In the past we have shut down immigration for long periods of time.

How the fuck do you think any of us got here? Special souls hand picked by God?

It doesn't matter how we got here. The bottom line is that we are here and they are not. Our right to be here trumps theirs. We have no moral obligation to allow immigration.

 

[koshergrl]

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

Our country is not an airline, so your analogy is absurd. Here's a more realistic analogy. Would you allow anyone to come into your house? Obviously not.

Haha, somebodies private property is very different than a nation founded on immigration. Nice try, but your example is much further away than mine, how about you try answering the question

The nation wasn't founded on immigration. It was founded on freedom and justice. America is also not a business, which is what you tried to compare it to. However, it is our home. So that analogy is far more accurate.

It certainly wasn't founded on immigration. Our country didn't become a country until we fired upon the asshats from across the water who thought they should take our shit and tell us what to do.

I'm so pleased that Trump is going to yank federal money from the schools.

 

[Slade3200]

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

Our country is not an airline, so your analogy is absurd. Here's a more realistic analogy. Would you allow anyone to come into your house? Obviously not.

Haha, somebodies private property is very different than a nation founded on immigration. Nice try, but your example is much further away than mine, how about you try answering the question

The nation wasn't founded on immigration. It was founded on freedom and justice. America is also not a business, which is what you tried to compare it to. However, it is our home. So that analogy is far more accurate.

Haha, yeah keep dodging I know you don't have a good answer, you never do. And by the way, we weren't founded on freedom and justice as much as you may want to believe. We stole the land and slaughtered the natives which we stupidly call Indians because we thought we were in India... then we broke from English control through revolt and war. We can get into the ships full of slaves that were brought over and sold after this free and just country was formed but it's a waste of time to talk facts with you, you've always lived in your own close minded reality.

 

[Sundance508]

 

[Slade3200]

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

Our country is not an airline, so your analogy is absurd. Here's a more realistic analogy. Would you allow anyone to come into your house? Obviously not.

Haha, somebodies private property is very different than a nation founded on immigration. Nice try, but your example is much further away than mine, how about you try answering the question

The nation wasn't founded on immigration. It was founded on freedom and justice. America is also not a business, which is what you tried to compare it to. However, it is our home. So that analogy is far more accurate.

It certainly wasn't founded on immigration. Our country didn't become a country until we fired upon the asshats from across the water who thought they should take our shit and tell us what to do.

I'm so pleased that Trump is going to yank federal money from the schools.

You are going to be sorely disappointed if you think he is going to do everything he campaigned about. Trump was a dem a few years ago and is much more liberal than he presented himself as he was conning America.mark my words. Obamacare is not getting repealed, i think he will lift the mandate and try to open plans up to competition but that is a very complicated process so who know if that will happen or how long it will take. As for schools, he may get rid of common core but I don't see him defunding our public schools, and I dont see why you think that's a good thing.