PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on November 17, 2015, 07:27:10 AM
-
Starting with Michegan, 26 states have refused President Obama's scheme to resettle Syrian "refugees" in their states. Shepherd Smith at Foxnews is going apoplectic over this as well as a host of progressives in and out of government.
The President clear said that ISiS was not a danger, so why is he so firmly demanding these "refugees" are in such peril? If ISIS is not a problem, how come the "refugees" aren't being sent home?
The whole scheme is a traitorous conspiracy to move future democrat voters into states that can be changed over to insure the democrats don't get their asses kicked next November, at the peril of bringing gin tens of thousands of violent terrorists along with them.
Typical progressive logic.
-
Sadly, my state is not one of them.
-
It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS decides as it seems to be a foregone conclusion it will end up there. Should be an interesting 10th amendment case.
-
My state, PA has already embraced the Obama scheme as Gov. Tom Wolf is an ultra progressive Obama clone. AFAIK, only two states so far have agreed to take the terrorists, I mean refugees in.
-
Our governor says we will gladly receive the immigrants, AKA "refugees" after a "thorough vetting". How does one vet a refugee from a war torn country? How do we know who the hell these people really are? Hook up a lie detector machine, have them eat a pork sandwich, draw a cartoon of Mohammed, pee on the ISIS flag and their in.
-
Starting with Michegan, 26 states have refused President Obama's scheme to resettle Syrian "refugees" in their states. Shepherd Smith at Foxnews is going apoplectic over this as well as a host of progressives in and out of government.
the president clear said that ISiS was not a danger, so why is he so firmlybdemanding these "refugees" are in such peril?
The whole scheme is a traitorous conspiracy to move future democrat voters into states that can be changed over to insure the democrats don't get their asses kicked next November, at the peril of bringing gin tens of thousands of violent terrorists along with them.
Typical progressive logic.
I didn't know that international refugees could vote in 12 months. Taught me something new. (sarcasm, y/n?)
-
I didn't know that international refugees could vote in 12 months. Taught me something new. (sarcasm, y/n?)
I didn't know dead people could vote, or people could vote multiple times, but they do. ;)
-
It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS decides as it seems to be a foregone conclusion it will end up there. Should be an interesting 10th amendment case.
It appears to be a foregone conclusion in the press that the states are "powerless" to prevent the Feds from relocating refugees within a state. However, I have yet to see the enumerated power that grants FedGov the right to do this over the sovereignty of any individual state.
-
I'm seeing all over the place that you can't consider the refugee issue to be at all connected with Paris. Refugees are just people like you and me! And certainly you and I would try to flee a war-torn, violent country!
-
I heard it is up to 33 states now. Questions is what good does it do if any state takes the refugees can they not just head off wherever they want?
-
The President has a habit of pushing the boundaries to see how much power he can usurp before he gets his hand slapped. Why do you suppose he is so obsessed with gathering all power?
Could it be because he intends to stay on after January 2017?
It sounds preposperous but his actions are pretty much always preposterous and the wimps in congress seem incapable of slapping him around.
-
I heard it is up to 33 states now. Questions is what good does it do if any state takes the refugees can they not just head off wherever they want?
Just 24 (or is it 25?) more states and it'll be a clean sweep.
:)
-
I heard it is up to 33 states now. Questions is what good does it do if any state takes the refugees can they not just head off wherever they want?
That just happened when a Syrian refugee in Baton Rouge just up and left.
-
The President has a habit of pushing the boundaries to see how much power he can usurp before he gets his hand slapped. Why do you suppose he is so obsessed with gathering all power?
Could it be because he intends to stay on after January 2017?
It sounds preposperous but his actions are pretty much always preposterous and the wimps in congress seem incapable of slapping him around.
Because that would be RACIST!!!!!
-
My understanding is, the states don't have the authority to refuse the immigrants if the Feds dump them there. The states have to take them, however what they can do is make life miserable for the immigrants by putting them in camps and putting restrictions on them. As it stands, they will just send them to states that welcome them with open arms and avoid the sensible states.
Of course after that, our newest American citizens will just go wherever they want, including a state near you. Remember new immigrants chanting "Death to America!!" in the streets is protected speech, so don't be alarmed.
-
My understanding is, the states don't have the authority to refuse the immigrants if the Feds dump them there. The states have to take them, however what they can do is make life miserable for the immigrants by putting them in camps and putting restrictions on them. As it stands, they will just send them to states that welcome them with open arms and avoid the sensible states.
Of course after that, our newest American citizens will just go wherever they want, including a state near you. Remember new immigrants chanting "Death to America!!" in the streets is protected speech, so don't be alarmed.
I keep hearing that, but have yet to see how the Feds legally trump the sovereign states on this matter.
-
I keep hearing that, but have yet to see how the Feds legally trump the sovereign states on this matter.
I'd like to know too. What part of the Consitution allows the Feds to force foreigners inot whichever state they select? Send them to Gitmo!
-
Question for all: what is so wrong to suggest, as Ted Cruz suggested, relocating Syrian Muslim refugees into predominantly Muslim countries, and Christian refugees into predominantly Christian countries?
-
Question for all: what is so wrong to suggest, as Ted Cruz suggested, relocating Syrian Muslim refugees into predominantly Muslim countries, and Christian refugees into predominantly Christian countries?
Too logical and reasonable. Our President said we are not allowed to segregate based on religion.
-
Question for all: what is so wrong to suggest, as Ted Cruz suggested, relocating Syrian Muslim refugees into predominantly Muslim countries, and Christian refugees into predominantly Christian countries?
Too logical and reasonable. Our President said we are not allowed to segregate based on religion.
A president would understand and take into consideration the legitimate security concerns of its citizens, regardless of political affiliation.
A dictator has no such constraints, and does what he wants to do regardless.
An petulant, man-child asshole dictator will take swipes at his opponents for daring to disagree, prior to doing what he wants to do.
-
Question for all: what is so wrong to suggest, as Ted Cruz suggested, relocating Syrian Muslim refugees into predominantly Muslim countries, and Christian refugees into predominantly Christian countries?
It's a great idea, but the problem is, Muslim countries aren't very welcoming to refugees from other countries. The more hardline ones put the refugees in refugee camps until they can return to their homes. So in some cases that means pretty much forever. In the more liberal Muslim countries like Turkey, they will allow you in, but you can never be a citizen and this denies you many things, such as property ownership, voting and many others. Also you are expected to return home when the war is over.
During the peak of the "refugee" crisis when they were all trooping across Europe towards Germany, I listened to an interview with an English speaking Syrian refugee that was trying to get into Germany on NPR. Of course it was a left leaning spin piece to build sympathy for the immigrants. However, they asked this guy why he was leaving Turkey, where he had been for a year and he said it was because the Turks wouldn't allow him citizenship and even though he was safe and fed, they denied him a way to better life. In his terms, he did not feel at home there, or that he could build a home there, so off to Germany.
It had nothing to do with fleeing a war zone anymore, or that he was hungry and had no shelter. It was just about making a better life for his family. I can't blame him one bit and I sympathize for sure, but that's why these people are really just immigrants and not really war refugees anymore. The Turks do house, feed, provide care and allow them to work, they just don't really want them. Other Muslim countries aren't so kind. They overtly say "We don't want you!"
-
The States where Governors have refused refugees have a total of 315 electoral votes. Just sayin'.
-
Question for all: what is so wrong to suggest, as Ted Cruz suggested, relocating Syrian Muslim refugees into predominantly Muslim countries, and Christian refugees into predominantly Christian countries?
It's a great idea, but the problem is, Muslim countries aren't very welcoming to refugees from other countries. The more hardline ones put the refugees in refugee camps until they can return to their homes. So in some cases that means pretty much forever. In the more liberal Muslim countries like Turkey, they will allow you in, but you can never be a citizen and this denies you many things, such as property ownership, voting and many others. Also you are expected to return home when the war is over.
During the peak of the "refugee" crisis when they were all trooping across Europe towards Germany, I listened to an interview with an English speaking Syrian refugee that was trying to get into Germany on NPR. Of course it was a left leaning spin piece to build sympathy for the immigrants. However, they asked this guy why he was leaving Turkey, where he had been for a year and he said it was because the Turks wouldn't allow him citizenship and even though he was safe and fed, they denied him a way to better life. In his terms, he did not feel at home there, or that he could build a home there, so off to Germany.
It had nothing to do with fleeing a war zone anymore, or that he was hungry and had no shelter. It was just about making a better life for his family. I can't blame him one bit and I sympathize for sure, but that's why these people are really just immigrants and not really war refugees anymore. The Turks do house, feed, provide care and allow them to work, they just don't really want them. Other Muslim countries aren't so kind. They overtly say "We don't want you!"
Well, that changes things, doesn't it? That makes them immigrants, for which we have a LEGAL immigration process, as do most other countries. And that process doesn't begin by coming to this country. I begins with applying to come here.
But back to my original question: where are the Christian refugees being accepted? Certainly they are the groups that are utterly not accepted in most Muslim countries. Would it not make sense for Christian refugees to be given priority as refugees in predominantly Christian countries?
-
Christians don't go to the UN refugee camps because they are full of Muslims and its not safe. Without getting refugee status from the UN at the camps the Christians are not part of the refugee exodus.
-
It is the same problem with Gaza. Muslim countries want no part of the trash in Gaza.
Muslim countries have enough problems of their own without resettling a bunch of militant trash from Syria.
-
It is the same problem with Gaza. Muslim countries want no part of the trash in Gaza.
Muslim countries have enough problems of their own without resettling a bunch of militant trash from Syria.
Exactly! People seem to forget all the refugee camps over the last decades. I think it telling that devote Muslims can't accept other Muslims into their midst. It's all about tribalism. Their tribes trump their religion.
-
Exactly! People seem to forget all the refugee camps over the last decades. I think it telling that devote Muslims can't accept other Muslims into their midst. It's all about tribalism. Their tribes trump their religion.
Yep. Hence the problems in Iraq. Tribes. The Arab states are European drawn falacies. Borders don't matter as much as tribes.
-
Yep. Hence the problems in Iraq. Tribes. The Arab states are European drawn falacies. Borders don't matter as much as tribes.
If it weren't for that damn puddle of oil under the sand, we would have let them kill each other back to the 7th century! ;D
-
This one is difficult for me. i was born here of Cuban refugees. My father was a capitalist. He "owned" stores which suddenly became the "peoples stores". Castro was way different from having to give cops and officials free cigars. However, as I recall Cuba had no intentions of attacking the USA. (not counting the missile crises - that wasn't Castro that was Khrushchev handling his bitch)
I am an American that believes in the America of the 50's and 60's. I find it difficult to turn away victims of war. But, no, I don't want Syrians here by the scores of thousands. I'm very conflicted on this.
-
This one is difficult for me. i was born here of Cuban refugees. My father was a capitalist. He "owned" stores which suddenly became the "peoples stores". Castro was way different from having to give cops and officials free cigars. However, as I recall Cuba had no intentions of attacking the USA. (not counting the missile crises - that wasn't Castro that was Khrushchev handling his bitch)
I am an American that believes in the America of the 50's and 60's. I find it difficult to turn away victims of war. But, no, I don't want Syrians here by the scores of thousands. I'm very conflicted on this.
You are seeing Obama's Fundamental Transformation. He views traditional America (your America from the 50's, and 60's) as a corrupt, and harmful empire that worked to abuse/exploit less developed countries. Therefore, in order to right past wrongs he wants to let every third world individual into the U.S. whether they are criminals, or terrorists. Plus he will get another voting block for the Democrats.
-
Starting with Michegan, 26 states have refused President Obama's scheme to resettle Syrian "refugees" in their states. Shepherd Smith at Foxnews is going apoplectic over this as well as a host of progressives in and out of government.
The President clear said that ISiS was not a danger, so why is he so firmly demanding these "refugees" are in such peril? If ISIS is not a problem, how come the "refugees" aren't being sent home?
The whole scheme is a traitorous conspiracy to move future democrat voters into states that can be changed over to insure the democrats don't get their asses kicked next November, at the peril of bringing gin tens of thousands of violent terrorists along with them.
Typical progressive logic.
Apologize if my comments repeat previous ones (haven't read them), but here they are:
1) I think that, at least, a pause is prudent.
2) 10,000 refugees is a lot, but nothing compared to what Europe is dealing with.
3) Having stated 2), it is important to note that America is the prime target.
4) It is easier to get into the US in almost any other way than as a refugee.
5) We should also look at the ISIS inspired kooks who are already here.
-
5) We should also look at the ISIS inspired kooks who are already here.
I listened to a guy on NPR the other night who was in the US intelligence community and he said they were way more worried about the radicalization of people living here already then of people slipping in as Syrian refugees. Although they were worried about that too.
-
I listened to a guy on NPR the other night who was in the US intelligence community and he said they were way more worried about the radicalization of people living here already then of people slipping in as Syrian refugees. Although they were worried about that too.
Oh, of course they are worried mostly about white, Christian men, and veterans. ::)
And it is their legally owned guns that are a problem too!
-
If white Americans would only kill themselves, and leave the planet to heal itself, the snowflakes to live without fear of having someone disagree with them, and then all worries would be relieved once and for all.
Of course as soon as the government handouts stopped, because production dropped so precipitously, then the snowflakes would start rioting, killing each other for food, and make believe micro-aggressions would be the least of their worries...
-
States should ship them to wherever Odummy builds his "presidential library". Put them on buses, stop next door, and have the drivers just take off, saying "I'll be right back."
-
Our governor says we will gladly receive the immigrants, AKA "refugees" after a "thorough vetting". How does one vet a refugee from a war torn country? How do we know who the hell these people really are? Hook up a lie detector machine, have them eat a pork sandwich, draw a cartoon of Mohammed, pee on the ISIS flag and their in.
Like this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states
-
That leaves out the part where they apply for,and are granted welfare. And where someone convinces them to register to vote. when they go to the DMV for their driver license.
-
Like this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states
Iris scans? Color me impressed. ::) Gosh, why don't I feel just all trusty-wusty after reading that flow chart of reassurance?
-
Iris scans? Color me impressed. ::) Gosh, why don't I feel just all trusty-wusty after reading that flow chart of reassurance?
So if they never previously had an iris or biometric scan, then there is nothing to compare, so they must be peaceful people and should enjoy the full rights and privileges of being a citizen, including of course the right to vote in the November election.
Ain't the US great?
-
Iris scans? Color me impressed. ::) Gosh, why don't I feel just all trusty-wusty after reading that flow chart of reassurance?
Only you can answer that, I guess. Is there any level of vetting that would make you feel comfortable with the process? I am just as concerned as the next guy/gal about terrorists managing to enter the US. On the other hand, being the planet's shining light of freedom and liberty takes guts, which makes me lean toward allowing some refugees under a proven, strict vetting process.
-
Only you can answer that, I guess. Is there any level of vetting that would make you feel comfortable with the process? I am just as concerned as the next guy/gal about terrorists managing to enter the US. On the other hand, being the planet's shining light of freedom and liberty takes guts, which makes me lean toward allowing some refugees under a proven, strict vetting process.
I might be comfortable with some level of vetting if I trusted wholeheartedly in "the system." We have numerous examples of how that system has succeeded and how it has failed.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, and try to keep a level head. It's the only way to survive daily life and be happy. But it's impossible to ignore what Europe is going through right now. Sweden has recently experienced some vigilante action, and people are saying "enough!" when it comes to the refugees' behavior toward communities and especially women. Refugees stormed a ferry in Calais. The assaults in Cologne are appalling. And there is Paris. San Bernardino.
I do not trust the government to keep us safe from this threat. The flow chart you linked says to me, "Big Chain of Steps with Myriad Loopholes and Escape Hatches." It's easy to say "sent back" or "refused entry," but we see how well that works with Mexico.
And as we have seen throughout history, the peaceful majority is indeed irrelevant. Unless and until they have to take matters into their own hands, as we see in Europe, to protect themselves and their families from a very real threat.
-
Only you can answer that, I guess. Is there any level of vetting that would make you feel comfortable with the process? I am just as concerned as the next guy/gal about terrorists managing to enter the US. On the other hand, being the planet's shining light of freedom and liberty takes guts, which makes me lean toward allowing some refugees under a proven, strict vetting process.
The correct answer is, "None."
The federal government lies more than they work, and they lie about the Muslim invasion more than they lie about a lot of other things. They are lying when they talk about vetting these pigs. They are lying about everything related to this problem and the real problem is that almost everyone knows it but no one knows how to stop it.
-
Only you can answer that, I guess. Is there any level of vetting that would make you feel comfortable with the process? I am just as concerned as the next guy/gal about terrorists managing to enter the US. On the other hand, being the planet's shining light of freedom and liberty takes guts, which makes me lean toward allowing some refugees under a proven, strict vetting process.
"Proven, strict vetting process"? What the hell is that? The one that let in the Tsarnaev brothers? What about the wife of the San Bernardino jihadist team?
Seriously, please let me know how you vet military-age men from Syria who have no ID.