It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

27 States and counting...

page: 12
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Don't disagree that it was a North Vietnam victory... it also was a USSR victory in the short term, but contributed to their ultimate bankrupting, as they could no longer afford to keep up with US military expenditure. Again, has ZERO bearing on whether it was a proxy war or not. Do you honestly believe the VC could have had a prayer of fighting America if not for the massive flow of money and arms to them from Moscow? Do you honestly believe that Saigon could have stood against the North and Russia's support of the North for as long as they did without American involvement?

The US didn't care about Vietnam. The US saw it as an opportunity to keep putting huge pressure on Moscow, particularly at a time when the US was trying to beat them to space and then to the moon. Ultimately, the US used Vietnam as little more than a toy... kinda the same way the US government used all the American troops they sent there.




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: kaylaluv
The citizenry of the U.S. IS the melting pot, so how could it ever have been forced and how could they have not "ever" have embraced it?


You're kidding me, right? Popular opinion in the US was adamantly opposed to Irish, Chinese, Germans, Mexicans, etc. immigrating to the US at various times. Ever hear of the "No Irish Need Apply" signs?

Do you realise that the U.S.A. was founded by European settlers in the past and that the country only has 300 yrs of history (excluding native americans of course)?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.

I would rather trust a Governor that errs on the side of caution than trust our POTUS. The POTUS that says we don't dare look at a military adventure as something the US should 'win'. The POTUS that did such a fine job of setting up a website for Obamacare. I'll trust him vetting 'refugees' from a country where you can get a fake passport for $825 all day long..... NOT!


Obama doesn't vet them....it's the same intelligence and military agencies that were there when you had a republican president doing the exact same thing with other refugees...all those governors are violating the constitution, which of course I as an upstanding American patriot, think they should immediately step down from their government positions, for directly violating that oath of office.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79

Absolutely I do. Those European settlers founded the nation... It was not founded as a melting pot. We did not have boats carrying people from all corners of the globe landing on the East coast, helping the country gain independence from Britain. We became an immigrant nation when the westward expansion and industrial revolutions occurred because we had an abundance of land and needed bodies for jobs... it's been many decades since the country last expanded and we've currently got the highest number of people not working in the nation's history... shut the front door!



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

and Oregon isn't one of them .. go figure.. .our emergency resources are maxed out and unable to sustain what we have already .. period..

if we don't send message...ALL of them will be here .. it's TIME to STOP the WARS!



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

The Federal government has jurisdiction on immigration over the states. This fact has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

As far as this particular issue, it's not about security of immigration/refugees. It's all political. The Republicans would be against this no matter what because Obama is at the helm. Don't let them fool you in to thinking they are doing it for our safety.


The Democratic Mayor of Cincinnati has also said we will not be taking in any of these refugees. Does he also have an anti-Obama agenda or maybe he is trying to do the right thing to protect his constituency? It is sheer stupidity to let these people into our country and is part of a larger NWO agenda to destroy cultures and breakdown international borders. THAT is the truth and what we are up against.


If they are refused entry which I really do not see how that will work with the current laws, look at the bright side...
This would work best for the enclaves of radicals. Put them all together so they can feel strong and make their plans; more voices for their demands.
You have to wonder how long it will be before the states gets to enjoy the demands of a break away state with their own laws, taxes and customs dictated by their religion. That scenario is being played out all over the world where they have settled so why would the states or anyplace else think it will be different this time ?... Bullets and bombs to follow..?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
So disgusted at this thread. Americans are #1 in ignorance in the western world.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
I agree and you still have an abundance of land compared to other countries. (especially mine, lol)
Unemployment rates have never been as high in Europe as well at the moment.
The current flooding of refugees will not help either on that matter.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Tell that to the parents of all the children killed at Sandy Hook. I'm sure that will make them feel much better.


What?? Case in point... what in hell does that have to do with the topic of conversation?? Im serious, I dont get it.


Comparing the absurd argument of "ban all guns to prevent the shooting deaths of children!" to "ban all refugees to stop terrorist attacks in the U.S.!"

You aren't going to stop all shooting deaths of innocents by banning guns and you aren't going to stop all terrorist acts by banning refugees. In both situations, all you will be doing is hurting innocent, law-abiding people.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

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 ?



I would say that is apples and oranges...but really its apples and washing machines.

Jews fleeing nazi Germany weren't beheading infidels or stoning women to death for heinous crime of being raped... I think there is a difference there you might be missing.


How ridiculous. Are you saying that all refugees are beheading infidels, stoning women, and everything associated with ISIL? That's quite ignorant.

Of course no one wants another Paris attack. Do you really think America is just gonna let anyone in without investigating them? We have already given up so much freedom in the name of security so if anyone fleeing the death trap that is Syria isn't vetted, well that blame lies on the authorities.

Bottom line, we have innocent men, women, and children running away from being raped and murdered by the hands of people who very closely resemble the Nazi's. Apples to oranges my...
edit on 17-11-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logman
So disgusted at this thread. Americans are #1 in ignorance in the western world.


That sounds an awful lot like " Muslims are #1 in terrorism in the whole entire universe".

Im disgusted too!



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Uhm, you're the one who introduced said "absurd argument" into this thread, though.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Tell that to the parents of all the children killed at Sandy Hook. I'm sure that will make them feel much better.


What?? Case in point... what in hell does that have to do with the topic of conversation?? Im serious, I dont get it.


Comparing the absurd argument of "ban all guns to prevent the shooting deaths of children!" to "ban all refugees to stop terrorist attacks in the U.S.!"

You aren't going to stop all shooting deaths of innocents by banning guns and you aren't going to stop all terrorist acts by banning refugees. In both situations, all you will be doing is hurting innocent, law-abiding people.


Still not applicable to the discussion... **shrug** maybe its just me.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You admit it is an absurd argument. I am saying banning all refugees is just as absurd an argument.

I just find it ironic how people around here fight the whole gun control idea tooth and nail, arguing that a few killings is worth them being able to have their guns, but saving the lives of innocent refugees and risk a possible terrorist act (that could happen anyway by a non-refugee)? No way!



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Tell that to the parents of all the children killed at Sandy Hook. I'm sure that will make them feel much better.


What?? Case in point... what in hell does that have to do with the topic of conversation?? Im serious, I dont get it.


Comparing the absurd argument of "ban all guns to prevent the shooting deaths of children!" to "ban all refugees to stop terrorist attacks in the U.S.!"

You aren't going to stop all shooting deaths of innocents by banning guns and you aren't going to stop all terrorist acts by banning refugees. In both situations, all you will be doing is hurting innocent, law-abiding people.


Still not applicable to the discussion... **shrug** maybe its just me.


Totally applicable. Do you agree that you won't stop all shooting deaths of innocents by banning guns? Do you agree that you won't stop attempts at terrorist attacks by denying refugees sanctuary?



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I just find it ironic how people around here fight the whole gun control idea tooth and nail, arguing that a few killings is worth them being able to have their guns, but saving the lives of innocent refugees and risk a possible terrorist act (that could happen anyway by a non-refugee)? No way!


Do you find the Constitution ironic as well? The Constitution grants exactly ZERO rights to entry, refuge, or asylum for non-citizens into the USA. Firearm ownership, however, are a Constitutionally defined RIGHT of the citizenry. There's a vast difference.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
It is being reported this morning that already, a Syrian refugee has gone missing in Louisiana.

Catholic Charities, who receive MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to oversee the incoming refugees' issues, has "lost" him. It's only a matter of time, people!

The smart thing to do, considering the radicalization of many muslims and the subsequent worldwide terrorist threat, is to declare a moratorium on this refugee program sponsored by the United Nations. Let the UN, who is the recipient of billions of dollars from us and others, build state-of-the-art refugee camps in their own regions and take care of these people until problems in their own countries are resolved.





Update at 2:15 pm: Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) is reporting that he has spoken with State Police officials and they have told him that they do not know the exact whereabouts of the Syrian refugee who has apparently left the Baton Rouge area. Vitter also said that officials said the refugee is believed to be headed to Washington DC.
thehayride.com...

Washington D.C......hmmmm. Makes you wonder.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Tell that to the parents of all the children killed at Sandy Hook. I'm sure that will make them feel much better.


What?? Case in point... what in hell does that have to do with the topic of conversation?? Im serious, I dont get it.


Comparing the absurd argument of "ban all guns to prevent the shooting deaths of children!" to "ban all refugees to stop terrorist attacks in the U.S.!"

You aren't going to stop all shooting deaths of innocents by banning guns and you aren't going to stop all terrorist acts by banning refugees. In both situations, all you will be doing is hurting innocent, law-abiding people.


Still not applicable to the discussion... **shrug** maybe its just me.


Totally applicable. Do you agree that you won't stop all shooting deaths of innocents by banning guns? Do you agree that you won't stop attempts at terrorist attacks by denying refugees sanctuary?


THeyre 2 different things to me. Completely. I see NO correlation between the 2 even in your questions.

Im serious, my brain kind of smoked when I read that comparison. I think that maybe the "fight" here is that some people understand things MUCH differently than others.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Advantage

You can't just answer the questions honestly? I see.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

No, but the Declaration of Independence does say that ALL people have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - not just citizens - and that governments should protect those rights. Does that mean nothing?



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join