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: 16
115
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn

You've lost more to toddlers and falling out of bed.




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Krazysh0t

" horrors like THIS ban. "

How Exactly is a Travel Ban of Seven Countries so far who are known to harbor Radical Islamic Terrorists considered to be a Horror ? Don't you want our Government to Prevent Future Acts of Terror on our Shores or Not ?

I like this absolute either/or you present me like if I DON'T agree with this ban that means I automatically want to promote future terrorism on American soil. Would you like to try this again, this time without the logical fallacy?



There is the Rub , you either Support the Ban for the Safty of All , or Reject it out of Personal Political Reasons . There is no " Middle Ground " in a Decision like that I am afraid....

I'm sorry that you feel that way.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: neformore

Yes , and while we are on the Subject , let Us think back to All the Terrorist Attacks , and the Innocent People Slaughtered that have Happened in the United States and Around the World in the Last 2 Years , along with the Identities of the Perpatrators of those Acts . Confirmed Radical Islamic Terrorists who some have Claimed Publicaly to be Responsable for those Deadly Attacks . If it Quacks Like a Duck , and Looks Like a Duck , It's Definately a Duck .

Let's talk about heart disease instead? It's the number 1 killer in the US and if you were REALLY serious about Americans being killed you'd put your money where your mouth is instead of conflating a few anecdotes as indicative of a larger trend that doesn't exist.


I have a few questions for you and anyone else reading this that disagrees with the ban.

Question 1.
Should there be a vetting process?

If yes: Why not take the time to create a really good vetting process in order to save as many American lives as possible?

If no : This conversation is terminated.

Question 2.
How does letting in refugees benefit average Joe that got laid off at the factory?

Question 1: Yes. It already exists and is pretty damn thorough since it takes something like 3 - 6 months to be properly vetted as a refugee.
Question 2: False correlation. You let in refugees because it is the humane and reasonable thing to do, not for some sort of quid pro quo.


"Humane and reasonable thing to do" Really?? This right here is the emotional flaw that a lot of individuals are plagued with.

This emotional knee jerk way of thinking is how people get killed!

So how many refugees should we let in till our country is no longer our country anymore? huh? When does it stop? huh?

Open arms forever?

All this anti-wall talk and all this welcoming refugees is defeating the definition of a "country"

If it was up to people like you, the dilution of America will be here asap!


How does the influx of refugees cause the country not to be yours anymore? Last I checked Muslims make up something like 1% of the total population in the country. A few extra thousand refugees aren't exactly going to swing things in Muslims' favor that much. That is just a pure numbers game.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.



This is just the courts trying to enforce certain policy without any constitutional standing to do so. You DO know that that there are procedures for changing the constitution and doing so by the courts isnt really one of them.

I don't think you know how our judicial system works.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neformore

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


Ok, go a. and prove it please. Any amendment will do if the line has been crossed , then we can all agree together. Otherwise your opinion is spot OFF.

Here's a good read that brings up many points that I agree with, though I'm sure you'll ignore it.
Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
So we are essentially at war with most of these countries, and at the bare minimum have authorized strikes, bombing, and clandestine operations in these countries. Yet we're just supposed to be willing to take anyone who fills out the paperwork for a VISA? Is it not worth 90 more days of time to sort this process out and get it right? We arent Welfare for the World. Why arent the total of 49 Muslim majority countries opening their doors to take these people? Why arent those countries over there fighting to save these poor refugees? Indonesia? 250 million Muslims there couldnt squeeze a few more? the Kingdom of Saud? Pakistan? These are the same bastards we saw fit to bomb every single day of Barak Obama's term. He didnt miss a day of bombing some poor goat herding Islamist. So why does anyone care that we close the door long enough to figure out who the crap is coming through.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: neformore

IF 87% of a population is unaffected by an action, that action cannot be discriminating against that population. There is no provable adverse impact.

Fear based? Sure. 22 terrorists were allowed in during the prior vetting procedure. It appears Trump doesn't want to have a risk of terror attacks that isn't addressed. I think it is a better approach than the random frisks at airport terminals where grandmothers get patted down so that it can be shown that there is no targeting going on.

I've beat the drum continuously in my belief that our Federal government is a 3 legged stool:

- protect our currency
- protect our economy
- protect our borders

I may find tings here and there that I disagree with Trump on. But on the whole, he supports that vision and is going HAM towards achieving it. ANd through his bluster and bravado, the details of his action show a concern for humanity. 87% of the worlds Muslim population is unaffected. And no one is affected forever as new policies are said to be rolled out in 90 days. Given how Trump has shown he will keep his word in unprecedented fashion, I am going to believe him (also unprecedented...i am a cynical old bastard).



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Funny story though, thanks for that.



So lets do less soundbytes.


Damnd shame to see such a nice business-modell go to waste! Wait a second...


In one episode, Bannon said, “you have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian West is on the retreat” He went on to predict a war between the U.S. and China within the next decade. He also predicted “a major shooting war in the Middle East” in the coming years. “To be brutally frank, I mean Christianity is dying in Europe, and Islam is on the rise,” he said in January 2016. “Some of these situations may get a little unpleasant,” Bannon said. “But you know what, we’re in a war.”

SitRep: Trump Advisor Bannon Predicts Wars With China, Middle East; Pentagon Officials Say Gloves Off in Yemen

They use this pseudo culture war spin for anything, this is how you create facts without even bothering to establish a solid case. How effing dumb do they think we are?
Last time I checked, CIASIS retreated from Aleppo and not Christianity from Europe. Meanwhile Vlad the Impaler is starting to cooperate with Erdogan in Syria, maybe someone should tell your new national security provider that the Russians are christians as well?


'We live in a world where the powerful deceive us. We know they lie. They know we know they lie. They don’t care.'


HyperNormalisation, Adam Curtis pretty much nailed it with that one.




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

THen challenge them in court.

By the time they work their way through, he'll have the new vetting policies rolled out. Which also can be challenged. We have a rule of law....don't cry foul and then fail to use it.
edit on 2/1/2017 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: theantediluvian

You are absolutely correct when you say it is a Muslim ban....

....It is also a ban of Christian, Buddhist , Jewish, Chinese, British, African and any other religion or race of people that might be in the country that is on the banned list. Because it's an entire country ban.


Didn't he say Christian families would be considered...?


Quote it and link your source.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Since 2011 till now something like eleven million Syrians became refugees due to a civl war the west started. During that whole time the United states admitted only couple thousand of them to our country.

Whats the complaint again?

Oh, anything anti-Trump.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Already happening.

13 Legal Actions Challenging Trump's Immigration Executive Order.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: xstealth

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

Its not a muslim ban. We agree on that.


Sarcasm. It can be great at times. Other times it can make you look even stupider. Your statement contradicts the title of the Thread OP. You still think its a relgious ban,but nowhere in it does it say MUSLIMS ONLY. it says all people from those countries. In short equality.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: neformore

I'm not sure whether that's an insulting statement or just an incredibly ignorant one.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Its the truth.

Take it any way you want it.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Where have i said otherwise? Certainly not in my OP or anywhere else in this thread.

What does "its not muslim ban" mean in your country? Do you speak a different language there?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Yeah, toddlers and falling out of bed are more of a danger to America than jihadists and their wet dreams of hitting the big time inside the USA... whatever man. If that's your "truth," then it's a pretty damn solid argument for exactly why the USA is doing what we're doing: we don't want to become the UK. Your positions on this topic are a stark reminder of just how far into la-la land the UK has allowed their public opinions on security to go all in the name of compassion, appeasement, and accommodation.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The United States is under NO obligation to allow anyone else into our country.
Period, end of discussion.
We are a sovereign nation with a recognized international border.
We are well within our right to close the door and say "sorry, we are done, come back some other time"
We are well within our right to place a bouncer at the door and say "sorry, you already look drunk you cant come in"
We do not have to give an explanation.
We do not have to give a justification.
We do not have to be nice
We do not have to please you.
We do not have to allow every sorry sod in just because they are having a rough time.
Our House, our rules.
Dont like it? Too bad.
I think your guy said "Elections have consequences."



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: neformore

You used a lot of fancy words in your OP.
You made a lot of sense.

You're expecting too much of the common Trump denominator.




top topics



 
115
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join