Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why should Germany have to pay for anything? It shouldn't be their problem in the first place. It has caused great strife in their nation, as well as other EU nations, i.e., the Paris shootings.True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.Yup, and we have no way to know who they are or vet them, but what we do know for sure is that ISIS has vowed to sneak terrorists in amongst them.
Which must make the whole ordeal that much worse for the non-terrorist in such untenable circumstances.
Ok, let's calculate what it has cost Germany so far in their attempts at being generous and welcoming. If a number could be reached, do you think that in hindsight Germany would be just as glad to write a check to Turkey in that amount (if, hypothetically, Turkey might agree) to fund a refugee camp there?
....-------to today's world it is an issue of two
groups that harbor deadly hostility towards each other
Why should Germany have to pay for anything? ....True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.Yup, and we have no way to know who they are or vet them, but what we do know for sure is that ISIS has vowed to sneak terrorists in amongst them.
Which must make the whole ordeal that much worse for the non-terrorist in such untenable circumstances.
Ok, let's calculate what it has cost Germany so far in their attempts at being generous and welcoming. If a number could be reached, do you think that in hindsight Germany would be just as glad to write a check to Turkey in that amount (if, hypothetically, Turkey might agree) to fund a refugee camp there?
....-------to today's world it is an issue of two
groups that harbor deadly hostility towards each other
Yeah, a lot of people tried to justify segregation in the US with that same 'argument.' It didn't work. And by the way, the word is not exclusive to race.
Euro countries have already given Turkey billions.True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.Yup, and we have no way to know who they are or vet them, but what we do know for sure is that ISIS has vowed to sneak terrorists in amongst them.
Which must make the whole ordeal that much worse for the non-terrorist in such untenable circumstances.
Ok, let's calculate what it has cost Germany so far in their attempts at being generous and welcoming. If a number could be reached, do you think that in hindsight Germany would be just as glad to write a check to Turkey in that amount (if, hypothetically, Turkey might agree) to fund a refugee camp there?
It should be entirely the other way around. Germany is the one that should be reimbursed, but if no muslims were to ever be allowed in Germany were the case, then there's no need for any remittance from anyone.Why should Germany have to pay for anything? ....True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.Yup, and we have no way to know who they are or vet them, but what we do know for sure is that ISIS has vowed to sneak terrorists in amongst them.
Which must make the whole ordeal that much worse for the non-terrorist in such untenable circumstances.
Ok, let's calculate what it has cost Germany so far in their attempts at being generous and welcoming. If a number could be reached, do you think that in hindsight Germany would be just as glad to write a check to Turkey in that amount (if, hypothetically, Turkey might agree) to fund a refugee camp there?
Not saying "have to," I'm wondering if they would prefer to, all things considered with the benefit of hindsight.
....-------to today's world it is an issue of two
groups that harbor deadly hostility towards each other
Yeah, a lot of people tried to justify segregation in the US with that same 'argument.' It didn't work. And by the way, the word is not exclusive to race.
I did not say that the word "segregation" is exclusive to race----I described the issue
in the USA as it was PROMINENT thruout the past century. I do not recall anyone
during the "segregation" quarrel of the 50 s and 60 s claim that black and white
children should be separated in school because they tend to KILL each other
Agreed. Refugee = immigrant. If the US did as Hillary suggested and took in 60,000 refugees, is there any doubt none of them would ever unwillingly go back to their homeland? They would set up roots here and establish enclaves like other mass influxes of "refugees" have done.True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.
It should be entirely the other way around. Germany is the one that should be reimbursed, but if no muslims were to ever be allowed in Germany were the case, then there's no need for any remittance from anyone.Why should Germany have to pay for anything? ....True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.Which must make the whole ordeal that much worse for the non-terrorist in such untenable circumstances.
Ok, let's calculate what it has cost Germany so far in their attempts at being generous and welcoming. If a number could be reached, do you think that in hindsight Germany would be just as glad to write a check to Turkey in that amount (if, hypothetically, Turkey might agree) to fund a refugee camp there?
Not saying "have to," I'm wondering if they would prefer to, all things considered with the benefit of hindsight.
I've noticed a pattern in your posting: Whenever you are losing a debate or simply have run out of intellectual ammunition, you resort to insults and accusations such as the one above.You weren't paying attention. ....
Agreed. Refugee = immigrant. If the US did as Hillary suggested and took in 60,000 refugees, is there any doubt none of them would ever unwillingly go back to their homeland? They would set up roots here and establish enclaves like other mass influxes of "refugees" have done....True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.
Not only that... we are talking about muslims here, and where ever muslims go they don't assimilate. They wait until their numbers are strong enough and then they start imposing their ideology and sharia law. We know this because we see it happening where ever they are in large enough numbers. They don't assimilate to their new nations, they work to take them over. It's what muslims do.Agreed. Refugee = immigrant. If the US did as Hillary suggested and took in 60,000 refugees, is there any doubt none of them would ever unwillingly go back to their homeland? They would set up roots here and establish enclaves like other mass influxes of "refugees" have done.True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.
Better to render assistance there and eliminate the reason why so many human beings are forced to leave their homeland.
Try again. Reasonable answer this time, if you know of one."Why has it not been arranged already?"That would be such a reasonable solution. Why has it not been arranged already? If we are going to offer reasonable alternatives to welcoming refugees here, it should be something that is actually achievable. Not unicorns and rainbows.True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.Yup, and we have no way to know who they are or vet them, but what we do know for sure is that ISIS has vowed to sneak terrorists in amongst them.
Which must make the whole ordeal that much worse for the non-terrorist in such untenable circumstances.
Because the muslim in the white house wants to flood America and as many other western nations with muslims as he can.
Obama hates America almost as much as he hates Christians.
Agreed. Their areas always seem to be hell holes, keep them there.of course its no big deal , let them fix their hell holes .
Not only that... we are talking about muslims here, and where ever muslims go they don't assimilate. They wait until their numbers are strong enough and then they start imposing their ideology and sharia law. We know this because we see it happening where ever they are in large enough numbers. They don't assimilate to their new nations, they work to take them over. It's what muslims do.Agreed. Refugee = immigrant. If the US did as Hillary suggested and took in 60,000 refugees, is there any doubt none of them would ever unwillingly go back to their homeland? They would set up roots here and establish enclaves like other mass influxes of "refugees" have done.True, but regardless, they should not be removed from their "muslim" homeland. An area for them should be secured and maintained for them to reside until this disaster is over.
Better to render assistance there and eliminate the reason why so many human beings are forced to leave their homeland.
No, obviously not. You should take your own advice:Are you trying to say that all immigrants are refugees, or that there is no difference between a refugee and other immigrants?
You weren't paying attention....
Agreed. Their areas always seem to be hell holes, keep them there.of course its no big deal , let them fix their hell holes .
This appears more like organized invasion to spread islam than refugees fleeing certain death. ....
....-------to today's world it is an issue of two
groups that harbor deadly hostility towards each other
Yeah, a lot of people tried to justify segregation in the US with that same 'argument.' It didn't work. And by the way, the word is not exclusive to race.
I did not say that the word "segregation" is exclusive to race----I described the issue
in the USA as it was PROMINENT thruout the past century. I do not recall anyone
during the "segregation" quarrel of the 50 s and 60 s claim that black and white
children should be separated in school because they tend to KILL each other
You weren't paying attention. When schools were being integrated, one of the more common complaints from parents is that their children wouldn't be safe.
