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.

 

You guys against the EO, what do you actually want?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Tristran

Right!?! Just like when Obama took all our guns.
That's the problem when you look at everything through a religious filter......When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Woodcarver

No, I do not FEEL like he is a bad guy. It is not an emotional matter for me, but one of statistical analysis, historical awareness, an awareness of the behaviours he has indulged in over the course of his life and what they mean for his personality type, not to mention an awareness of the implications of his actions and statements since attaining the office of President.

As for your doubt over whether he disagrees with the idea that humans are hurting the environment, if he gave a God damn either way, then he would be listening to the scientists on the issue, and not appointing science deniers and intellectual non-entities to deal with the EPA, and other science related fields.


I don't know why you have such a hard on for the EPA, but they have been caught polluting worse than businesses. Also they create regulations that only line the pockets of government instead of actually benefit the environment.
edit on 1/31/2017 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

OK...

The various pipeline orders.

I see these as crapping on the rights of the most abused people in all American history, those being the Native American people. Between the sacred ground being damaged, and the threat that these pipelines variously will pose to both Native Land, clean water, and the surrounding environment, they are a bad idea and always were. There are things that one should not do for profit, and screwing over Native Americans is one of those things.

The various anti-terror measures, including the travel bans.

Pointless, and fundamentally flawed, especially if there is anyone left in America who values liberty. First of all, the only people who deserve to live free, with their liberty intact, are those who are prepared to die because they had liberty, rather than be so tightly secured as to have none. If any one American citizen or resident is negatively effected by this policy, then ALL Americans ought to be against it, because they should respect one anothers liberty and freedom regardless of nation of origin, religious belief, or any other metric. Clearly, those supporting this are anti liberty, freedom, and presumably therefore, anti-American, unless American means something else than it used to.

Furthermore, the travel bans from the seven countries involved are hilarious. Saudi Arabia, exports terror and fundamentalism to the rest of the Middle East, ably assisted and part funded by the US intelligence community and MIC, and yet that nation is not on the list? Osama Bin Laden was from there. So were fifteen of the nineteen individuals identified in connection with the 9/11 event. And yet, Saudi Arabia is not on the list? The absence of this nation from the list, shows that it is not a list meant to prevent terror being transmitted across the globe, but a people pleaser which achieves nothing, other than inviting the ire of those who believe in freedom more than their own security, i.e. people whose opinions are worth a damn. It looks good to the moron masses, but actually achieves none of its stated aims, not even nearly.

Oh, and another thing...

This deregulatory effort he is making with respect to manufacturing.

Workers and their safety on site comes before profits. If any deviation away from that basic principle is ever seen anywhere, someone needs to go to jail. When the president refuses to protect workers over and above the interests of the businesses they work for, there is something significantly wrong with his priorities.
edit on 31-1-2017 by TrueBrit because: grammatical error removed.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: eXia7

Yes, they do.

The answer to that is not to put a science denier in charge of their operations though. No matter WHAT they have been getting up to, installing a person who is anti-intellectual in any science related post, is tantamount to telling the science community "My ignorance has more power than your intellect". No one should be happy about that.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   
"You guys against the EO, what do you want?"

I want an L.

An ELO seems like a much groovier outcome.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Democrat Party leadership wants a Democrat as President.

Anything else will get the smear treatment including lies from the MSM and Democrats.

Democrats in past administrations have supported the same thing - hypocrites.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
So...one religious answer, saying Trump is the AntiChrist and one clearly emotional answer that doesn't really answer the question at all....Hmm.
Ever notice when you ask them what they really want, they have no clue?


Nailhead meet hammer.

This is the reason for the thread.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I am well aware you have lots of opinions and angry feels, there are many other topics in which these can be discussed, but what I'm asking is, in relation to this particular EO, what is that you want? What is your solution?

If you think things were totally fine as they were, you are absolutely entitled to that opinion and I would be happy to hear that!



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Doesn't matter what people, particularly the left, want. It is legal. Supreme Court in 1893 gave national government the right to exclude or remove from immigration. This power was that of Congress who delegated it to the Executive branch with the Immigration and Nationality Act. The purpose is to limit the issuance of visas to unstable regions.

Cite USC 1182 as well.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner




Ironically, it seems as though those who 8 years ago overwhelmingly voted for change, are terrified when things start to actually change..

well posted
I may steal that line



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: TrueBrit

I am well aware you have lots of opinions and angry feels, there are many other topics in which these can be discussed, but what I'm asking is, in relation to this particular EO, what is that you want? What is your solution?

If you think things were totally fine as they were, you are absolutely entitled to that opinion and I would be happy to hear that!


TB can answer for himself but for me i would start with honesty in media from all sides BEFORE we get on to what could be done.

In answer to that part, nothing succesful in the short term (or, to put in another way, short term success = long term fail). How do we make the world safer is essentially the question. And the only answer to that is ending inequalities between rich and poor. I don't mean just one class with no rich or poor, rather ending the huge disparities. The Taliban are a perfect example here. The vast majority of Taliban fighters are not religious extremists, they are poor farmers that earn far more by joining the Taliban than they would by farming. So if we can free up the cash to make them more secure, they then have no need to join the Taliban. This is one simple example but it can be extrapolated right through conflict zones around the world.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I absolutely guarantee the millions supposedly against it have not read it, and are uninformed on what the EO actually says. Which is typical liberal fashion. They just see some news report that some guy got turned back and feel outraged over it. Sheeple.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Doesn't matter what people, particularly the left, want. It is legal. Supreme Court in 1893 gave national government the right to exclude or remove from immigration. This power was that of Congress who delegated it to the Executive branch with the Immigration and Nationality Act. The purpose is to limit the issuance of visas to unstable regions.

Cite USC 1182 as well.


Absolutely...

I think it's insane that ANYONE would think that a foreign national has any RIGHT to emigrate to another country. Migration is supposed to be a MUTUALLY beneficial PRIVELAGE granted to those who have EARNT it...



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: TrueBrit

I am well aware you have lots of opinions and angry feels, there are many other topics in which these can be discussed, but what I'm asking is, in relation to this particular EO, what is that you want? What is your solution?

If you think things were totally fine as they were, you are absolutely entitled to that opinion and I would be happy to hear that!


TB can answer for himself but for me i would start with honesty in media from all sides BEFORE we get on to what could be done.

In answer to that part, nothing succesful in the short term (or, to put in another way, short term success = long term fail). How do we make the world safer is essentially the question. And the only answer to that is ending inequalities between rich and poor. I don't mean just one class with no rich or poor, rather ending the huge disparities. The Taliban are a perfect example here. The vast majority of Taliban fighters are not religious extremists, they are poor farmers that earn far more by joining the Taliban than they would by farming. So if we can free up the cash to make them more secure, they then have no need to join the Taliban. This is one simple example but it can be extrapolated right through conflict zones around the world.


Lovely response, thank you.

I would say a tad idealistic, but I can see what you are getting at. I'm not sure if you are for or against the EO, but do you think a freeze on migration could give the US the breathing space it needs to start exploring these sorts of more "lateral thinking" styles of solution?

I mean, how easy would it be for the US to effectively intervene economically in a country that has a large group of people opposed to their intervention? Even if that is only a small group of people, isn't it sensible to safeguard your own people from threats, THEN think about ways to help those suffering in other countries?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   
You guys against the EO, what do you actually want?

They want more people to die.

They want more Patriot Acts.

They want more No fly lists.

They want more San Bernadinos.

They want more Orlandos.

They want more Boston Marathon bombings.

They want more BIG BROTHER SPYING.

They want more ORWELLIAN"ISM.

And imagine most of all that could be done away with.

If we vetted people that came here.

Geezus H christ.

Eo critics have gone full SNIP compared to what's came before.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner




Ironically, it seems as though those who 8 years ago overwhelmingly voted for change, are terrified when things start to actually change..

well posted
I may steal that line


My pleasure!



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Sources for my previous post.
SC: supreme.justia.com...
INA:
www.uscis.gov...



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Now Neo, I asked for no feels.

I don't think anyone in the US wants any of those things.

A few people in the ME might want some of them though... so I get your point.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

In all honesty i am one of those of those rare people at present - i am from UK so think the EO has absolutely nothing to do with me or my fellow countrymen!

That said, i do not think any new order is necessary. Instead, it would be just as effective to properly implement existing legislation. For example, any terrorists (as that is the claim for the ban) from the proscribed countries could get around the ban........simply by assuming false identities and travelling from a differing country. So, in that respect, i don't really see the purpose of the EO.

And yes, it is a very idealistic approach and probably unattainable. Sadly though, i think it is the only way to genuinely make the world a safer place.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

In all honesty i am one of those of those rare people at present - i am from UK so think the EO has absolutely nothing to do with me or my fellow countrymen!

That said, i do not think any new order is necessary. Instead, it would be just as effective to properly implement existing legislation. For example, any terrorists (as that is the claim for the ban) from the proscribed countries could get around the ban........simply by assuming false identities and travelling from a differing country. So, in that respect, i don't really see the purpose of the EO.

And yes, it is a very idealistic approach and probably unattainable. Sadly though, i think it is the only way to genuinely make the world a safer place.


Isn't that essentially what the EO aims to do?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join