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: 8
115
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your either with us or against us,

Not this rhetoric again... I hate absolutes... It's so dumb and arrogant.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

I'm not going to answer your false correlation.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Why YES I do think that the number 1 killer in the US is more important to fight than this:
Terrorism by Muslims makes up one-third of 1 percent of all murders in the US


Black people are killed FAR, FAR more by other black people than cops (cops killing black men is exceptionally rare by comparison) and yet it's a never ending national issue by folks like you and the mass media. To the point you;ll make excuses for and even promote a violent racist hate group.






edit on 30-1-2017 by TheBulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
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?


Oh my bad. I thought you were posturing as more than a useless blowhard. you know, since you so easily point fingers. Hey, my 5 year old nephew isn't even as good at that as you! Also, you didn't respond to a single point I made, so you might be useless... but at least you're consistent!



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
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?


I gave you two cases, after Obama's "let's take a look, but not actually do anything" policy took effect. You weren't even interested enough to address them when you responded to me, but suddenly you want evidence??? I want evidence you're not a mentally retarded troll.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: neformore

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


From what I'm reading, that's BS. Trump spreading BS? Can't be!

T rump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011




The only news report that we could find that referred to a six-month ban was a 2013 ABC News article that included this line: “As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News — even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”

The “Kentucky case” refers to two Iraqis in Kentucky who in May 2011 were arrested and faced federal terrorism charges after officials discovered from an informant that Waad Ramadan Alwan, before he had been granted asylum in the United States, had constructed improvised roadside bombs in Iraq. The FBI, after examining fragments from thousands of bomb parts, found Alwan’s fingerprints on a cordless phone that had been wired to detonate an improvised bomb in 2005.

The arrests caused an uproar in Congress, and the Obama administration pledged to reexamine the records of 58,000 Iraqis who had been settled in the United States. The administration also imposed new, more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees. Media reports at the time focused on how the new screening procedures had delayed visa approvals, even as the United States was preparing to end its involvement in the Iraq War.

“The enhanced screening procedures have caused a logjam in regular visa admissions from Iraq, even for those who risked their lives to aid American troops and who now fear reprisals as the Obama administration winds down the U.S. military presence,” the Baltimore Sun reported.

The Los Angeles Times reported that U.S. officials acknowledged delays but were trying to speed up the process:



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Even Chucky.



/thread



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

"Hi - where did I comment on something being constitutional? "

You said the ban was unconstitutional. It is not. For someone who constantly needs things explained to them, and willingly claims to not be progressive enough to be bothered attempting at a solution, you sure don't have a problem claiming a high road. Tell us why you're not a moron, exactly.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your either with us or against us,

Not this rhetoric again... I hate absolutes... It's so dumb and arrogant.


Except when it comes to other things like 'climate debate is settled' and other political issues.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

I'm not going to answer your false correlation.


It's a simple question.

Does letting in refugees benefit average Joe that got laid off at the factory?

Yes or no? Really simple.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Conservatives research something? Unless it has pictures they're not into it...:::;coughpizzagatecough::::



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: bender151

Where have I pointed fingers in this thread?

Please, show me.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




In other words. It's a judgement call and your guess is as good as mine.


It's a judgement call by the DHS. I suspect they have access to more information. I agree that Saudia Arabia should be on the list along with a host of other countries, though I'm not sure it meets the criteria of a "country of concern".



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: bender151

I'm curious.

Heres a list of all my posts in this thread (take the space out and copy/paste it)

h ttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1158495/pg1&mem=neformore

Where in this thread did I say that?

edit on 30/1/17 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I guess the lesson to be learned in all this... If you can't be right about a situation, be loud. The louder you are, the more the other sheep will notice you.


Py



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: bender151

No, you see, you talked about Obama.

This thread isn't about Obama. He's irrelevant, as he's not around any more.

This thread is about the term "muslim ban", and how its not one.

Hence the title of my OP



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian


The NSC estimated 38,300 automobile crash related fatalities in the US in 2015. Perhaps we should stop all driving for a few months until we can get a handle on this!


Same old stupid argument. Yes, cars are devising plots to murder innocents, and preventable accidents are akin to mass murder.


Why even bother if you're going to be intellectually dishonest? Do you care that much about getting high fives from dummies?


In terms of "a nice precaution?" You could say that about anything. I could say that forcing you to get a new "extreme driver's license test" tomorrow is a "nice precaution" too. Never can be too safe right? Maybe the old test wasn't good enough? Did they do a hair follicle test for illegal substances? Maybe you pose a risk? The NSC estimated 38,300 automobile crash related fatalities in the US in 2015. Perhaps we should stop all driving for a few months until we can get a handle on this!


My example was deliberately absurd. Perhaps you could tell me what the deficiencies are in the current vetting process and how "extreme vetting" will remedy them?
edit on 2017-1-30 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: bender151

No, you see, you talked about Obama.

This thread isn't about Obama. He's irrelevant, as he's not around any more.

This thread is about the term "muslim ban", and how its not one.

Hence the title of my OP


Ah but former president Bush was entirely relevant for all eight of Obama's years.

Right?

As for the op...

Meh.


edit on 30-1-2017 by ausername because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

My example was deliberately absurd. Perhaps you could tell me what the deficiencies are in the current vetting process and how "extreme vetting" will remedy them?


Seriously? You're asking how increasing the scrutiny of the vetting process will improve a less scrutinizing process? We get it, you hate Trump. It's making you insane.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

I'm not going to answer your false correlation.


How is it a false correlation? Does the country of the United States of America not belong to the citizens of the United States of America? Yes or no?

So how would moving in refugees benefit average Joe that got laid off at the factory?



new topics

top topics



 
115
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join