How YOU should act now.

[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...

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.

Read the Declaration of independence, moron. What does it say? Those are the founding principles of this country, not some nebulous claims about immigration. You can point out all the failures of this country to live up to its ideals until doomsday, but that doesn't change the fact that those are our principles, and America was a far better country when it came to honoring those principles than any other country in the world.

Again, your analogy is shit because America isn't a business. America is our home, and we have every right to determine who can enter it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Public schools are funded by local government, so it's absurd to believe that Trump will defund them. However, what he can do is abolish the Dept of Education, which is totally unnecessary.

Obamacare will be repealed. If there's one thing Trump voters want, it's that.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

I won't be sorely disappointed, lol. Because I can look at Trump's lifetime of achievement and I can see just how he operates. I'm good with it. And I know he understands the issues a whole shitload better than you do. You see, unlike you, this man never bought the commie propaganda that you have been cultivated under.

And yes, he said quite specifically that he wants to eliminate the Dept. of Education and remove federal funding from the schools, placing them back under control of local communities. Our schools spend more federal money on education than any other country..and our students are at the bottom of the heap. As he said, obviously that doesn't work.

This is going to be amazing. I can't wait for a whole year of watching idiots such as yourself watch the fake world that you have created fall around your ears as you get brought into the real world very quickly.

PS..I think the days of foodstamps and ssi for everyone are over. I think he's going to open up the trade schools, and if you're too stupid to work, you'll land your ass in one of those and learn something like sawing wood, so you can go forth and get a job. Take it or leave it. It will be wonderful.

So will the immediate firing of federal *agents* and employees that we absolutely 100 percent don't need. Adios to those commie bastards, they can go work at mc d's.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Read the Declaration of independence, moron. What does it say? Those are the founding principles of this country, not some nebulous claims about immigration. You can point out all the failures of this country to live up to its ideals until doomsday, but that doesn't change the fact that those are our principles, and America was a far better country when it came to honoring those principles than any other country in the world.

Again, your analogy is shit because America isn't a business. America is our home, and we have every right to determine who can enter it.

Again you dodge the question. Let me make it easier for you since you are wrapped up in this business thing. Instead of an airline business let's say it's Indiana, chicagos neighbor... so should the governor of Indiana be allowed to banned poor black males who live in south Chicago from enetering his state? They do In Fact statistically pose a higher crime risk...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Good call......

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

"We" didn't steal the land. You weren't there and the land belonged to whoever took it. That's what the natives did regardless of what you want to call them. And some made slaves of others, some slaughtered others. It's the way of man unfortunately.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Public schools are funded by local government, so it's absurd to believe that Trump will defund them. However, what he can do is abolish the Dept of Education, which is totally unnecessary.

Obamacare will be repealed. If there's one thing Trump voters want, it's that.

Well we can semi agree on one thing... the dept of education can use a good gutting and should be a resource for advancing learning programs, not a dictator of curriculum. Common core is fine for them to promote but should not be mandatory.

Obama care will not be repealed, it will be modified and improved.... The R and R line is nothing more than buzz words. Y'all got no clue what the actual logistics and process would be to do so... I'm guessing Trump is starting to get a dose of that reality.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Read the Declaration of independence, moron. What does it say? Those are the founding principles of this country, not some nebulous claims about immigration. You can point out all the failures of this country to live up to its ideals until doomsday, but that doesn't change the fact that those are our principles, and America was a far better country when it came to honoring those principles than any other country in the world.

Again, your analogy is shit because America isn't a business. America is our home, and we have every right to determine who can enter it.

Again you dodge the question. Let me make it easier for you since you are wrapped up in this business thing. Instead of an airline business let's say it's Indiana, chicagos neighbor... so should the governor of Indiana be allowed to banned poor black males who live in south Chicago from enetering his state? They do In Fact statistically pose a higher crime risk...

The Constitution doesn't allow him to do it. That issue was decided 230 years ago. However, the Constitution does allow us to determine who can cross our national border. That's the bottom line.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Public schools are funded by local government, so it's absurd to believe that Trump will defund them. However, what he can do is abolish the Dept of Education, which is totally unnecessary.

Obamacare will be repealed. If there's one thing Trump voters want, it's that.

Well we can semi agree on one thing... the dept of education can use a good gutting and should be a resource for advancing learning programs, not a dictator of curriculum. Common core is fine for them to promote but should not be mandatory.

Obama care will not be repealed, it will be modified and improved.... The R and R line is nothing more than buzz words. Y'all got no clue what the actual logistics and process would be to do so... I'm guessing Trump is starting to get a dose of that reality.

The Dept of Education has demonstrated no talent for "advancing learning programs." It mostly imposes atrocities like common core on us. It needs to be abolished precisely to prevent the "learning programs" it wants to inflict on us.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Read the Declaration of independence, moron. What does it say? Those are the founding principles of this country, not some nebulous claims about immigration. You can point out all the failures of this country to live up to its ideals until doomsday, but that doesn't change the fact that those are our principles, and America was a far better country when it came to honoring those principles than any other country in the world.

Again, your analogy is shit because America isn't a business. America is our home, and we have every right to determine who can enter it.

Again you dodge the question. Let me make it easier for you since you are wrapped up in this business thing. Instead of an airline business let's say it's Indiana, chicagos neighbor... so should the governor of Indiana be allowed to banned poor black males who live in south Chicago from enetering his state? They do In Fact statistically pose a higher crime risk...

The Constitution doesn't allow him to do it. That issue was decided 230 years ago. However, the Constitution does allow us to determine who can cross our national border. That's the bottom line.

There ya go, you could have used the same answer for the airline analogy and saved us a bunch of time. The constitution doesn't let people into your homes either and protects private property.

The constitution does not directly define policy for immigration and refugees it does provides the federal government with the power to dictate this policy and it has been written....
---
The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution vests the federal government — and not the states — with “power over immigration, naturalization and deportation.”

“When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land,” wrote Justice Hugo Black in the 1941 case Hines v. Davidowitz. “No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute.”
----

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Public schools are funded by local government, so it's absurd to believe that Trump will defund them. However, what he can do is abolish the Dept of Education, which is totally unnecessary.

Obamacare will be repealed. If there's one thing Trump voters want, it's that.

Well we can semi agree on one thing... the dept of education can use a good gutting and should be a resource for advancing learning programs, not a dictator of curriculum. Common core is fine for them to promote but should not be mandatory.

Obama care will not be repealed, it will be modified and improved.... The R and R line is nothing more than buzz words. Y'all got no clue what the actual logistics and process would be to do so... I'm guessing Trump is starting to get a dose of that reality.

The Dept of Education has demonstrated no talent for "advancing learning programs." It mostly imposes atrocities like common core on us. It needs to be abolished precisely to prevent the "learning programs" it wants to inflict on us.

It is not going to be abolished, you sound like dipshit Cruz, it can use a good gutting and much less power though. Like I regretfully said I do agree with you that states should hold more power over their schools

 

[Clementine]

It seems to be the only way the GOP can win...

The Democrats screwed themselves.

Yes, by not having more electoral college voters, whose votes count more than yours or mine...

Again. The Democrats screwed themselves.

Looking at the election results map, it's clear that the area in California that has a huge illegal population carried the state for Hillary. And Obama did tell them that if they vote, they would not get caught. I think it's more than a coincidence.

And the "legal" citizens, who are anchor babies, voted for Hillary because she promised amnesty for all their relatives. They voted based on what they want right now. Most Trump supporters voted for what is best for all citizens now and in the future, national security.

Hillary's open borders and one world government appeals to those who hate America and want to come here and help change us into a socialist hellhole. Socialism sounds great to those who envy the achievers.

Why would we want illegals and their families to shape our country when they are only concerned with getting what they want now? Even if they got their amnesty, what kind of country will we be down the road? Some in the gay community voted for Hillary because she changed her stance on gay marriage. They've already got rights. What Hillary would do is bring in more Muslims, who think murdering gays is acceptable.

Those who were able to look ahead knew that Hillary would be a disaster we might not have ever recovered.

 

[Divine Wind]

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...

Yes, you should be allowed to do so. OTOH, having such a broad brush attitude would eventually prove bad for business. If your business fails because of such ideas, should you be allowed access to taxpayer dollars to recover? No.

Although your question is simple, to properly answer it, and to recognize the consequences, requires a very large amount of depth.

 

[Divine Wind]

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?

Agreed. What we need is true immigration reform. The reason we have so many illegal immigrants is because too many well-monied, well-connected people are happily enjoying the status quo. No, not the stupid "illegal immigrant vote" meme, but financial. Illegals are the modern version of indentured servants. The closest some businesses can get to slave labor in the US.

Besides immigration, let's not forget that many of our ancestors who came to America were either indentured servants or slaves.

 

[Slade3200]

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...

Yes, you should be allowed to do so. OTOH, having such a broad brush attitude would eventually prove bad for business. If your business fails because of such ideas, should you be allowed access to taxpayer dollars to recover? No.

Although your question is simple, to properly answer it, and to recognize the consequences, requires a very large amount of depth.

Are you saying that you think we should get rid of all our anti-discrimination and civil rights laws?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

 

[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?

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

Now I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

 

[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?

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

Now I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

Error #1: Helping them doesn't require us to import them into our country.

Error #2: It doesn't matter what our allies do. We aren't required to copy their stupidity.

Error #3: Our allies are reconsidering their policy on refugees.

Error #4: "Courage" isn't a desirable trait of government when its citizens will be taking all the risk.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

We have an airport security system that checks for bottled liquids, as well as sharp objects such as box cutter knives, with random pat downs. It's a tested, as well as proven very effective security system that resulted out of and in response to 9-11. So what possible threat do you think they pose, that wasn't just rendered null and void by my argument? Crime violence is very different argument from an ideology based on hatred towards all those who don't share in their Muslim faith. How many violent acts can you provide proof of occurring out of Chicago, that involved the killing through explosives or other means to target thousands of innocent civilians REGARDLESS of the color of their skin? Are you capable of telling the difference between an isolated killing of an individual, with a well organized plan stemming from an ideological belief?

Now, I would like you to answer my question that was posed to you. This reflects more accurately with regard to the situation we are now being faced with, which is during a time of war. Can you provide me proof to where the United States had an open border policy towards a nation [which could be changed to mean region in our case] that was hostile towards us allowing immigrants from the empire of the sun to become citizens of the United States? Now this is what I consider to be a more valid argument, not "street crime".

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

Now I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

Error #1: Helping them doesn't require us to import them into our country.

Error #2: It doesn't matter what our allies do. We aren't required to copy their stupidity.

Error #3: Our allies are reconsidering their policy on refugees.

Error #4: "Courage" isn't a desirable trait of government when its citizens will be taking all the risk.

Slade is probably unfamiliar with humanitarian efforts such as Manna and Chowhound which were used during the war, and allowed the United States to BE engaged in ways that helped those found in occupied hostile areas. Also, where is the case for the United Nations?Should we not allow them to get more involved and engaged militarily in aiding with the need to move those trapped refugees from that region where they are threatened, or is the left admitting the organization is too beurocratic? Looking to the UN to assist the refugees would give the UN relevance to the skeptics of the world, that they are capable to move beyond diplomatic debates and a mere fundraising effort. I still can recall there were are a lot of liberals, and individuals like Slade, who didn't WANT the United States involved in "nation building", yet we are still finding ourselves entangled in the problems of these regions. Only now we are looking to bring those problems over here into this country, while opening ourselves up to those threats that our own airport security is meant to prevent from those travelers wishing to enter our nation from overseas. What valid reason is there to undermine our national security that was in place since 9-11? He is just choosing to be ignorant of those threats that exist and the kind of enemy we are facing, and quite frankly he hasn't validated his argument. There are other options, like humanitarian air drops that I mentioned, which has yet to be used.