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: 5
115
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Care to explain why the EO cites the 9/11 terrorist attack but doesn't ban anyone from Saudi Arabia?




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Maybe, but that's just junk food you've got here. More like feeding ignorance.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: swedy13

Actually it could be a complete ban on Muslims and be legal.
edit on 30-1-2017 by KEACHI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: KEACHI
a reply to: swedy13

Actually it could be a complete ban on Muslims and be legal.


That would be the end of USA as we know it .

Are sure that you are on the " Right Side " ?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
It's an assault of the Lawlessness , coming your way soon .



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Disagree, OP. IMHO it's a common sense approach to national security.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

You can only call it that if you'd like to pretend there's no justification for it. Do you really want to go that route? I mean, even taking things like San Bernardino or Orlando out of the equation, in my city alone we've had two Somali immigrants attack multiple people in two separate attacks in less than a year, injury roughly 20. In one case, the man simply entered a restaurant and attacked people as they were eating. In the other the man drove his car into a bunch of people, got out, and attacked them with a knife. Obama didn't want to call it terrorism, but the insurance companies did. The restaurant had to close down after 20+ years.
It seems your solution is that there's no problem, and to do nothing. In the later case the family, while from Somalia, had spent time in Afghanistan. For how long? No one really knows. It's that sloppy vetting process that resulted in the attack. So, you make yourself a sign, go sit in the cold, and yell about feels. For those that recognize a faulty system and would like to do something about it, there's work to be done.
By the way, Obama's State department had a similar ban (6 months instead of 4). The list of countries was also Obama's. I'm sure you were really concerned back then too. So, while we're being attacked here, and people are being burned alive and beheaded over their religious beliefs over there, you tell yourself it's nothing to be concerned about.
We're all aware extremists come in all colors, and we have our own problems here. Why add to them? Why not simply look at that problem by instituting a moratorium until a plan that's better than "let's do nothing" is worked out. In the meantime we can focus on our domestic problems as well.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: swedy13
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).


Of course it's a Muslim ban.

No matter how they try to twist it.


Does that mean Muslims from Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Europe, Kazakhstan, Uzbekhistan, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and other countries not listed whoalso have Muslim residents who want to come to the US and who have valid passports and visas are banned from coming here because they are Muslim?


And of course the biggie...Saudi Arabia, where the most extreme form of Islam is practised..wahabbism and not to forget that EVERYONE from these countries cannot travel to the US, whether they be christian, Muslim, Buddhists or even atheist

Nope it's definitely not a muslim ban

(as an aside, spellchecker lets me write christian and atheist without capitalisation but not Muslim or Buddhism ..weird lol)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: eNumbra

It's absolutely fixed and true. If the 38% were involved it could be a completely different outcome with neither of those two winning. People are always saying we need a 3rd party (or more) to get away from the 2 party system. By your numbers there is more than enough people to make that happen.

And this is the mud pit.


That 38% isn't just people who didnt vote, it includes those who did vote third party. And I'm sure not every single person who didn't vote did it because they were lazy; you could make that assertion if Election Day was a national holiday, but it's not.

And yes, this is in the mud pit, I made a mistake, so I'll re word my request.

Grow up.


Clinton: 65,844,610 (48.2%)
Trump: 62,979,636 (46.1%)
Others: 7,804,213 (5.7%)

This means over 90 MILLION eligible people did not vote. My point still stands. And when I say lazy I don't just mean the people who did not bother to go, I mean intellectually lazy. They'd rather keep up with the Kardashians or watch football than to take a few minuets each day to stay informed and participate in the countries electoral process.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: bender151

hello.

Did you read my OP?

I presented no "solution" - and offered no opinion on what to do.

Tell me, where did you get the idea from that I did?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

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.


Would you like to explain why you didn't complain when Obama banned an entire nation from coming in?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

no it says that

"remains in full, complete and total effect."
that those already in country before the EO was signed can't be deported yet, until it is found out that it is Constitutional in the law siut filed by the ACLU, not in those words but that's what it means, that all green card holders were granted"special permission" which i take as coming from DHS/Customs/ICE, and that people that are foreign-born U.S. residents have been allowed to enter. as in a decisions coming from DHS/ Custom/ICE.

no over turning by anyone.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump sycophants casually overlook that clause.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

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.


Would you like to explain why you didn't complain when Obama banned an entire nation from coming in?

I don't have to complain about fiction.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Hi.

Please educate me - How many immigrants from those countries have been implicated in acts of terrorism?

Just so I know

I mean, its not a muslim ban, so its obviously based on real time statistics. What are they?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Care to explain why the Dems fully supported singling out and cracking down on these same exact countries?

Even Chucky.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   


Holywood has already told you how this is going to end .



Yankee , wake up !!!



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Care to explain why the EO cites the 9/11 terrorist attack but doesn't ban anyone from Saudi Arabia?


Maybe because Trump has business interests in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi Government could retaliate and cause Donald's empire to lose money there.

Conflict of interest showing up clear as day.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: grainofsand

Opinion is food for thought, is it not?

Yes, like Twinkies are to the body. For example, I don't take the opinions of someone who doesn't actually know what's constitutional and what isn't as worth paying attention to.




top topics



 
115
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join