Visa Ban

Quote: reno

One of Bill Clinton's greatest failings as a President was not being tougher on Saudi Arabia. Obama was even worse. All these politicians of both parties are spineless politically correct cowards for not holding Saudi Arabia responsible for the simple fact that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis.

No one, Republican, Democrat or Golden boy, is ever going to get tough on the world's largest oil producer and exporter.

Quote: Nareed

No one, Republican, Democrat or Golden boy, is ever going to get tough on the world's largest oil producer and exporter.

If that is a fact, why are so many people climbing all over Trump for leaving them off the temporary immigration restriction? Seems a bit strange to me. Yeah, he has business interests there. You tell me how two recent Presidents--Clinton and Obama--became rich without using any of the power of their position before, during, or after the Presidency and then I will start to believe some of what you say. They got rich being President. Trump is a lot of things; one of them that he was before he even tried to become President was rich with worldwide business interests.

Quote: stinkingliberal

I comprehend what you're saying, but how exactly and under what international law do we "hold a nation responsible" for the actions of fifteen of its citizens? What, demand reparations? Are we in turn willing to pay reparations every time an American commits a crime in a foreign country?

The fundamental question is whether these 15 criminals are just a few bad apples in a nation of 33 million or whether these 15 criminals had support from the highest echelons of the Saudi government.

The answer to that question is buried in 28 pages that were classified by the Bush administration. There's a reason Bush classified it.

In the photo below, man standing next to Condoleeza Rice is Prince Bandar bin Sultan. He funded 2 of the 9/11 hijackers: Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi.

Face- I really appreciated your entire comment, you're asking some tough questions that ought to make all ideologues squirm (myself included.)

Quote: Face

You and I share many of the same views, and one of those I felt we were in lock step agreement on is this ridiculous notion of security. We've both independently made comments about this issue or that issue, and we both have steadfastly agreed that safety is an illusion and not worth the suppression of freedom and rights. This mostly comes up in gun or shooting-of-the-month threads, but we've also brought it up in other areas, be it climate, general security, and consumer products.

Well put. We can't let our draconian government take away our God-given right to lose 11,737 lives annually to gun violence. But our weak sissy government needs to crack down on the jihadists who kill 9 Americans annually.

There's a disconnect between perception and reality.

Quote: Face

And sure, while it may be prudent to focus on certain states or regions, it is obvious that a great many decent people are getting f#$%ed over and out. And I use that phrase intentionally, as the things I've seen are no "inconvenience". It's straight f#$%ed over and out.

Trump royally screwed over Talib al Kenani, which is shocking considering how important Kenani is to U.S. security. Even if you give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that Trump didn't do it on purpose (Trump screwed Kenani due to ignorance, not maliciousness) it raises the question of why Trump has stubbornly doubled down on his own ignorance. The less he knows about terrorism, the better?

Trump will bend over backwards to let Prince Bandar Bin Sultan in and keep Talib al Kenani out. And Trump's supporters don't even know the difference.

I feel safer already.

Quote: reno

Well put. We can't let our draconian government take away our God-given right to lose 11,737 lives annually to gun violence. But our weak sissy government needs to crack down on the jihadists who kill 9 Americans annually.

I will support anyone who takes security the most rationally.

-Which is actual risk assessment, as an actuary would be required to calculate it for a business which has insured people. Anything else is political agenda and magical thinking.

People will f***ing drive their car half asleep drinking a coffee in traffic, but act like the mooselems (I like that word) are going to slice their children's throats in their beds in Poorbucket of Chickentown America, where an unknown woman who has a scarf on her head in the winter is mistaken for a Islamic jihadist.

Visa ban, visa ban ...... Can't you just shut up already and use Master Card?

Quote: rxwine

People will f***ing drive their car half asleep drinking a coffee in traffic, but act like the mooselems (I like that word) are going to slice their children's throats in their beds in Poorbucket of Chickentown America, where an unknown woman who has a scarf on her head in the winter is mistaken for a Islamic jihadist.

1. People are idiots. X2 for Trumpers.
2. People are generally terrible at risk assessment, as they are with mathematical concepts in general.
3. One of the hallmarks of idiots is doubling down when they're wrong.

So statistics showing how minuscule the risk of a terrorist attack on Chickentown really is are meaningless. Fear is usually not rational and does not involve an objective measurement of risk. So telling an idiot that domestic terrorism isn't worth worrying about will evoke a fear-based, twitch-like reaction. Our resident Trumpers here certainly see a slavering MOOZLEEM behind every tree.

And you can bet your case dollar that when there is ANY act of violence committed by a Muslim in the US in the near future, it will be immediately labeled an act of "radical Islamic terrorism" regardless of the circumstances, Trumpers will start baying at the moon, and Breitbart and Fox "News" will run several opinion pieces effusively praising Trump.

I wonder why we don't ever hear the phrase, "radical Christian terrorism," by the way. There have been far more acts of terrorism committed by Christians than MOOZLEEMS in the US.

Quote: terapined

I am not comfortable with affirmative action
Cool?

“You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race,” President Lyndon B. Johnson said in a 1965 speech that laid the groundwork for affirmative action, “and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”

Just how uncomfortable are you ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/sunday-review/rethinking-affirmative-action.html

Quote: buzzardknot

“Just how uncomfortable are you ?

Buzz, cmon. Where are you coming from?????????
I looked at that post and woops. LOL
that was a miss type. Sorry. Honest mistake.
regardless
I clarified my position when I responded to you
look below, I reposted. Please read

Quote: terapined

I am against.

I disagree with Hill.
this comment of yours above makes no sense

I don't take the liberal side blindly on every issue
Do you follow trump right down the line on every single issue?

??????????????????????
I solidified my view to against
Don't you read my posts?
I am against Affirmative action
I agree with you
I don't always agree with Libs

Do you follow your leader trump and defend action and utterance?
I don't follow the left on every issue
I take it issue by issue

So Buzz, you never answered my question
Do you support trump on every single issue?
Or do you disagree with Trump on some issues just as I disagree with Libs?

Quote: terapined

Do you follow your leader trump and defend action and utterance?
I don't follow the left on every issue
I take it issue by issue

I think it is the zealots that bother me.