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.

 

OK. Its not a muslim ban

page: 1
115
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+122 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I get it - its not a muslim ban.

So lets call it what it is.

Its a fear-based pandering to the lowest common denominator of religious stereo-typing born out of massive ignorance with very little substance in terms of actual proof of evident cause and effect piece of political showmanship that has been rushed in to place to cater for Trumps "core" audience

Admittedly, thats not as good a soundbyte, but it captures the essence of it.

And while we're on the subject of things that aren't something - no, its not the same as what Obama did - as you can read here;
foreignpolicy.com...

The problem with politics right now is that it needs some straighter talking and less soundbytes.

So lets do less soundbytes.



+130 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
If you want to call it as it is, it's a common sense plan.

Don't let people come in without more extreme vetting, period.

What is so hard to understand about that?


I think what you're pushing is complete ignorant propaganda that a middle schooler can debunk.


+58 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Your OP is an impressive assertion of personal opinion.
That's similar to a sound bite isn't it?
They share characteristics for sure.


+89 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Obama banned all refugees from Iraq for about 6 months. What did you think of that?


+56 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
A group of them have announced a war against us.

I am glad that there is an adult that isn't making emotion based decisions here.

Sort out the head-chopping medieval ones now please.

I got enough crap to deal with.

This situation is a prime example of PC leading to deaths
edit on 1 by Mandroid7 because: edited



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Opinion is food for thought, is it not?


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

The only label I need is simple and concise. Unconstitutional.


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

He didn't. Read the link.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: xstealth

Propaganda? no. I gave my opinon of the not-muslim ban.

Its not a muslim ban. We agree on that.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: neformore

What did you think of that?

I think you should research claims before you say them.


+50 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neformore

The only label I need is simple and concise. Unconstitutional.


I didn't see any rights granted "middle eastern terrorists" in the constitution, can you post a link?


+50 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

This is what a majority of Americans wanted.

This is what a majority of Americans voted for.

If you don't like it let your vote do your talking in the next election.


+46 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not to mention Trump's ban is based on the recommendations from a 2015 report by the Obama administration.

Friendly Reminder: Obama Selected The List Of Muslim Countries in Trump’s Executive Order


+51 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neformore

The only label I need is simple and concise. Unconstitutional.


It's completely constitutional, it's within the power of the executive branch to stop immigration from certain regions.

Every president of our life has done it.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DrStevenBrule

Did I say otherwise?

Nope.


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Oh, neformore, please, no you, you have more common sense than most I know, please no this rant.

I will say no more.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: grainofsand

Opinion is food for thought, is it not?


Of course, but asserted as fact always attracts a tsk tsk from me for obvious reasons.


+24 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
SO it's a problem to restrict the flow of people coming from countries like Syria that have a terrorist infestation and/or publicly saber rattle with the US? I find it funny how everyone is jumping through their a^& over this "ban." Even people with US visas should be looked at when returning from these countries! How many times after a attack do we hear how they traveled to say Syria to undergo training? That point seems to be lost on all the people protesting this ban. Even the Boston bombers who came from a country not on that ban list went home and returned radicalized.


+15 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neformore

The only label I need is simple and concise. Unconstitutional.


It's completely constitutional, it's within the power of the executive branch to stop immigration from certain regions.

Every president of our life has done it.

So that's why 4 federal courts have already overturned parts of it and there are legal battles across the country trying to get it overturned as unconstitutional huh? You DO know that Trump doesn't determine constitutionality right? That isn't his branch of the government.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


+49 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore




Its a fear-based pandering to the lowest common denominator of religious stereo-typing born out of massive ignorance with very little substance in terms of actual proof of evident cause and effect piece of political showmanship that has been rushed in to place to cater for Trumps "core" audience


It's an executive order. That's what it is. But its stated purpose is quite clear:

"In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation."

Which of this do you disagree with?




top topics



 
115
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join