27 States and counting...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

This is so unrealistic I can hardly believe it.
Time for me to exit your party here....thanks for the thread!
S/F

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That's a good idea. This conversation is already highly distasteful to me, and now we are going down the street of partisan sniping. I think I'll bow out too.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

There are currently more than 300,000 homeless veterans on the streets in this country and the number is growing. Why doesn't king obama want to find homes for them?

Because that is socialism and a bill doing such would never pass a republican congress. Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely.

If it is the right thing to do then king obama should do it. He takes up the pen like a sword whenever it pleases him. Why not do it for our veterans?

I don't think you will find many republicans who would try to stop legislation that would provide homes for homeless American veterans. Any you do find should be voted out as soon as possible.

The Republicans would stop damn near anything that came from Obama. You know it and so do I.

But I am glad to see you are a bit reasonable and would agree with a socialist plan to help veterans. Now if we could just get King Obama to be more socialist we'd be ok.

a reply to: Klassified
I think it most likely has to do with the money.

Most of those states can't house, feed or provide medical care for the citizens that are presently living here in America. In some of these states the insurance companies that contacted to manage the state healthcare programs have bailed because the states can't afford to pay them. They have citizens living in the streets because they have run out of shelter space, and the churches have also run out of space, even in the tent cities.

So where are they supposed to put these people, and how are they going to feed them? With the states refusing, this places the problem squarely in the lap of the Federal Government, and when the sparks start to fl, the states can sit back and say, "We told you so."

It is not fair to bring anyone into a state that has no means for caring for them. It is unfair for the citizens of those states that are sleeping in the alleys, to have asylum seekers placed in shelters were they had been turned away. It is unfair for the asylum seeker and the citizen, to ask them to watch their children starve. It is just plain inhumane and wrong to bring them in with no plans or means for their future.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I don't think you will find many republicans who would try to stop legislation that would provide homes for homeless American veterans. Any you do find should be voted out as soon as possible.

But ----
why, then, are so many people supporting the GOP 'contenders' for POTUS who want to gut all government programs that help the needy and disenfranchised, the veterans and unemployed, the sick and elderly;

and who (the contenders) also want more war and also want to allow and enable corporations and the rich to not have to pitch in?

Without going too far off topic, democrats say republicans want to gut government programs that help the needy and so on. Republicans want to stop people who have no right to those funds and services like illegal aliens and other criminals. Democrats want s many illegals here as possible because they keep voting for democrats. Republicans want king obama to put the checkbook down until the programs can be funded without further injury to tax payers who cant afford programs being abused by illegal aliens and so on...

Back on topic...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

There are currently more than 300,000 homeless veterans on the streets in this country and the number is growing. Why doesn't king obama want to find homes for them?

Because that is socialism and a bill doing such would never pass a republican congress. Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely.

If it is the right thing to do then king obama should do it. He takes up the pen like a sword whenever it pleases him. Why not do it for our veterans?

I don't think you will find many republicans who would try to stop legislation that would provide homes for homeless American veterans. Any you do find should be voted out as soon as possible.

The Republicans would stop damn near anything that came from Obama. You know it and so do I.

But I am glad to see you are a bit reasonable and would agree with a socialist plan to help veterans. Now if we could just get King Obama to be more socialist we'd be ok.

You say republican would block anything from obama I say obama would block anything from republicans. We are both right.

I would be for any program that helped our veterans, as well as any other American citizen, who needs it and I wont put a brand name on it, socialist, etc. If the program will help the people it is intended to help, and no one else, I am all for it.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Vroomfondel

It would be interesting to know how many on that list refused to take Jews who where fleeing Nazi Germany ?

The United States in general did not take in Jews seeking to escape Europe as refugees. Only those who had relatives came here.

However, you are comparing apples to oranges.

The Jews fleeing Nazis were more analogous to Christians fleeing the region, and as we all know, there are plenty who castigated those who made the suggestion that perhaps we take in the Christians fleeing. The Muslims fleeing ISIS are less likely to fall under immediate threat of execution unless they are Alewite or Shi'a in which case, the Alewites can go to Assad-controlled territory and the Shi'as need only flee as far as Iran.

If you want a more valid comparison, you should be asking if we took in Germans fleeing the Nazis.

While the input and opinions are appreciated, lets stay on topic without going any further into republicans vs democrats and who would or wouldnt do this or that.

27 states and counting are refusing to accept refugees, at least until they are investigated to the fullest extent possible and every measure to ensure the safety of American citizens is being taken.

I still dont find that the least bit unreasonable. I wonder what part of that is so offensive to the opposing view. Is it that we are being extra careful? Is it that we want to protect our homes and our families? What is so wrong with taking every available precaution, especially in light of recent events, to protect ourselves, our homes, our families, and our way of life?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Agreed.

There are enough pedos out there in America, we dont need a culture that has ignored Pederasty since the beginning of time.

I guess I'm racist.

No male refugees over 12 is my threshhold for feeling safe.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Agreed.

There are enough pedos out there in America, we dont need a culture that has ignored Pederasty since the beginning of time.

I guess I'm racist.

No male refugees over 12 is my threshhold for feeling safe.

Agreed. I dont understand a culture that inflicts so much torture and suffering on its own people. And its not just the children either, though I find that aspect particularly disturbing. Hate me, call me a hater, whatever, I dont want that anywhere near my family.

a reply to: Flatfish

If being on the list has no legal significance, why are you happy to be on it? 

The only thing being on that list does, is to possibly identify your state as a target for your enemies.

I happy that my state and others have brought to the point of fast tracking imagrints and refugees in to this country with out proper vetting. As for the enemy whom are you referring to?

a reply to: anticitizen

then send the refugees home.

How do you propose to do that? Just curious.

a reply to: CX

If my wife and kids were fleeing a country that was being bombed, I'd want to be with them to look after them.

Me too. Or if I was afraid my kids were going to die, I would rather stay and die with them.

introvert:

...is part of a larger NWO agenda to destroy cultures and breakdown international borders. THAT is the truth and what we are up against.

Conspiratorial garbage. You can't even prove there is a NWO agenda, let alone claim it is some truth.

Actually, it is factual. What they are doing in Europe and Britain could not work in America, as it is multi-racial already. No, in Europe and Britain, there still exists large host cultures that have a long history and legacy of mono-culture. It is the mono-culture they are trying to break up and dismantle through the process of multiculturalism. Multiculturalists are seeking to undermine the host culture of England and the host traditional mono-cultures of Europe. They will fail, especially now with the terrorist attacks, and the rise of Islamism (the political and militant side of Islam).

White English is now the minority in London, where over 8 million people live. Step outside London, and you will come across that large mono-culture of England which is going nowhere.

We are at a time now, due to appalling events that political correctness and multiculturalism is going to be pushed back and hammered back into none-existence. It will certainly be a fight, because it won't be against ethnic British, but against white-on-white English.

Don't get me wrong. Multiculturalism is the right direction for humanity, but both the time and the context is not right for it yet, it is many decades away, but has been and is being forcibly promulgated on people, whose voices of rebuttal have been silenced by laws and regulations and social pressures. If you are white and English, and try to debate the issue, you are shouted down as being racist, even though race and genetics play no part in the issue.

The concerns are all about compatibility, genuine integration, and differences in mindset and culture. English culture has developed over thousands of years, and members of our own brethren are seeking to destroy it in under a century. They are not out to simply dilute it, but to erase it completely. That will not be allowed to happen. It won't be Muslims or Islam that will bring the English to battle, it will be English prats that want to establish multiculturalism through the implementation of political correctness at the expense of their fellow compatriots and English culture. There is going to be a massive swing of the pendulum in the paradigm, whether it begins in England or on the European continent, I don't know, but the wave of rebuttal will spread across Europe and Britain in no uncertain terms.

Multiculturalism cannot work in the world we have right now. It is too schismatic to establish any stability in the idea, because there are too many competing incompatible ideologies, but idiots are trying to force it to work. Muslim culture is also mono-cultural because of the way it is tied into Islam. Islam forms Muslim ideology, and it forbids integration as current interpretations stand. Now with the rise of Islamism, and the Islamic State, even Muslims are in an ideological war with themselves, just as white Europeans and white Britons are each in an ideological war with their selves.

Over the coming years, you will see in Britain and Europe forms of infighting and argument and raging debates as the idea of multiculturalism is both intellectually and physically resisted..it needs to be. For the sake of stability, human rights, and culture that if allowed to be part of the dialogue for multiculturalism, may provide the most stable and welcoming canvas for the idea. Yet, as I have stated, multiculturalism is a good idea for the future. Right now, it is a nightmare, and too destructive.

No more refugees,no more,keep them away.We don`t need more probable terrorists and we sure don`t need more people in this country.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
My first thought was that it is a State Rights issue....and that States should be allowed to block questionable/unsafe immigration practices.However...

But "when push comes to shove, the federal government has both the plenary power and the power of the 1980 Refugee Act to place refugees anywhere in the country," Appleby said.

www.clickondetroit.com...

Seems all the stats will be able to do is make it difficult as possible to allow these people in their states.

The ultimate power will always rest in Washington. But the states are not completely powerless. Politics is a game of leverage. When more than half of your nation publicly stands against you, you might have to back up a bit and rethink your position. You could force it on them, but you would be stretching that rubber band again. These things snap back sooner or later and this one is going to leave a mark.

a reply to: elysiumfire

I like your post. Well said.

Multiculturalism is fine but it requires multiple cultures willing to accept cultures other than their own. Islam has a real problem with that. Unless the whole of islam moves toward a more accepting and tolerant position they will forever be fighting an uphill battle in terms of being accepted into non-muslim states.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Yet, as I have stated, multiculturalism is a good idea for the future.

Right now it's too soon. Oil and water. Maybe some day that will change in a good way. Now, not so much.

a reply to: Annee

Sorry, I thought you meant the American Indians. My bad.

The solution to this problem is simple, really. Choose one:
1. Adopt an American policy of isolationism and non-intervention in the Middle East. If Assad wants to kill rebels trying to kill him, let him do so... conversely, if the rebels take down Assad, oh well.
or
2. Start dropping bombs and don't let up until the enemy is completely broken, following them into neighboring countries if need be. None of this "kinder, gentler" war crap Bush embraced, either. You DO NOT let up until the job is completed and the enemy's resilience has been destroyed.

I personally like option 1.

Vroomfondel:

I like your post.

Thank you.

angeldoll:

Right now it's too soon. Oil and water. Maybe some day that will change in a good way. Now, not so much.

That is exactly what I stated.