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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner
Let me make one important distinction: those countries don't hate us. The government and political factions may hate our government but the PEOPLE of those countries don't necessarily hate us. The vast majority of the people coming into this country from overseas --- the VAST majority --- are simply looking for the opportunity to have a better life for themselves and their children. The VAST majority work hard, pay taxes, play by the rules and contribute to this country. Unfortunately for them, they are being lumped-in with a dangerous minority and being disallowed from coming here. It's like say that because you are Catholic, there is an elevated risk that you are a pedophile. Or that because you are German there is an undue risk you could be a neo-Nazi. Or because you are Irish you could be an IRA member. Or because you're from Columbia you are a drug smuggler.



edit on 31-1-2017 by jtma508 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

No... no... no.

You may want to dismiss what I wrote as "feels" and opinion, but it is not. What I posted happen to be facts. You may not like the way I present them, but that does not change what they are. A person has no right to state that they are pro-liberty and Freedom, unless they disagree with these measures. Simply put they are FACTUALLY mutually exclusive positions. One cannot be pro-liberty and pro-ban. One cannot be a lover of freedom, and at the same time want to restrict the freedom of others, no matter what their nation of origin. It IS a fundamental of liberty loving and freedom loving people, that they would rather die themselves than see infringements inflicted on others, and furthermore it is a fact that people who understand the concepts of liberty and freedom correctly, do not make distinctions between citizens and non-citizens.

And rather than just go off, heres my take on what ought to be happening instead of a travel ban...

Baldly, I want America to take responsibility for its foreign policy FAILURES over the last twenty years, starting with cancelling this travel ban to the point where things are as they were before it, then organising with aid groups to get persecuted persons out of danger zones, and yes, housed on US soil. I want my government in the UK to be doing that as well. I want the administration of both countries to cease either official or unofficial links and agreements with the Saudi government, to supply weapons, aid and money to terror groups in the Middle East, as I KNOW they have currently. I want both nations to cease any and all military action not solely limited to border defence (that includes any foreign deployment of either armed forces or intelligence assets, special forces, or any other asset). I want all troops, intelligence officers, private contractors in all fields, whether PMC or industrial/infrastructural, removed from the danger zones as well.

I want all funds normally allocated to continuing offensive missions against any targets in the Middle East, reallocated to allow for the care of refugees instead, because unlike EVERY OTHER APPROACH, these will slow down the creation of radicals much faster than bombings which make more recruits than they kill.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




One cannot be pro-liberty and pro-ban.


Except when the EO critics hate rich people,bankers,ceos,gmo,cigarettes,GUNS,hi capacity magazines, and climate change.

Then pro liberty is thrown out with the bath water, and they are PRO Banimals.
edit on 31-1-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner
Let me make one important distinction: those countries don't hate us. The government and political factions may hate our government but the PEOPLE of those countries don't necessarily hate us. The vast majority of the people coming into this country from overseas --- the VAST majority --- are simply looking for the opportunity to have a better life for themselves and their children. The VAST majority work hard, pay taxes, play by the rules and contribute to this country. Unfortunately for them, they are being lumped-in with a dangerous minority and being disallowed from coming here. It's like say that because you are Catholic, there is an elevated risk that you are a pedophile. Or that because you are German there is an undue risk you could be a neo-Nazi. Or because you are Irish you could be an IRA member. Or because you're from Columbia you are a drug smuggler.



Agreed, I generalised.

However, we haven't really been in this kind of situation before.

In the 80's and 90's in Britain, had we been bombing Ireland for a few years and then had there been 1000's of Irish migrants flooding into Britain whilst the IRA were actively using terror against us, I absolutely think they would have all been treated as potential terrorists, heavily vetted maybe even a blanket ban.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Climate is changing. Thats a fact. Why it is changing is only up for debate for those who refuse to actually learn any science, and the causes are no where near as important at this stage, as preparing for what comes next. Building sea defences to keep the coastlines from flooding in the next forty years, making efforts to increase the number of trees being planted, relative to the number being cut down, stuff like that. No matter what the cause of Climate Change, it is an existent phenomenon which requires countermeasures. The argument taking as long as it has so far, poses more threat to us than many of the conflicts that are brewing at the moment.

And another thing. I am a lefty. I also support the right of Americans to go about armed, and I wish we still had more than a notional right to do the same in my country. I also believe that if you lack the finesse to use a blade to defend yourself, a high capacity magazine is going to be necessary, unless you want to club people to death after missing nearly all the shots in the small mag you got with the gun you have. I am a lefty and I smoke like a trooper, and why not? I cannot afford to retire! Liberty is important to me.

But lets get away from the left, away from me for a second. Neo96, do you love liberty and freedom enough, that you would rather die yourself than see any element of them denied to a person? Are you pro-liberty, or pro-ban?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

The people who didn't vote for Trump won't want anything he does. And this includes the media. The rest of the US is fine with Trump's policies and actions. It's why we voted for him!



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

" Fully open borders? All the world holding hands under a rainbow? "

That's precisely what they want, ne, DEMAND!

But honestly, I think you knew this. Look, in the US it's probably the same as the UK, the people protesting are all Leftist Urbanite City dwellers, and many are recent immigrants themselves. It is the same "free lunch" bunch coupled with wealthy 1%ers that want to appear all up liberal progressive. They get all the Press/Media focus because the Media agrees with them and serves as their cheeleading propaganda outlets.

Its all about open borders and erasing the concept of the nation state. Always has been.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




But lets get away from the left, away from me for a second. Neo96, do you love liberty and freedom enough, that you would rather die yourself than see any element of them denied to a person? Are you pro-liberty, or pro-ban?


How about looking up just EXACTLY what goes on in those seven countries.

Iran,Sudan,Iraq,Syria,Somalia,Libya,Yemen before going on a tirade about nothing.

3 are on the state sponsors of terrorism.

1 is the home of the Darfur Genocide.

1 the last president was killing pirates. Hollywood even made a movie about it.

1 country that JV team is nation building.

1 the last president bombed the hell out of. It's people dragged it's leader through the streets beaten and bloody.

So give it a rest.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner
...the attitudes of 97% of scientists...


Oh no, you di'un.


originally posted by: TrueBrit
...NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of scientists...


Oh no, you did!

97%, eh?

97% implies 100%, which implies a fixed number. Do you have access to a list of every single scientist who currently holds an opinion on "climate change"? Bit hard to have 97% of anything when you can't even quantify what 100% represents.

Do you have a link to the survey describing the methodology? Did they track down every single scientist in the world and ask them?

Could you also quantify "climate change"? I can't imagine any scientist denies that the climate changes. That's a very different question to whether "humans have any significant long-term impact on the climate in the ways alleged."

The last time people beat this particular horse, it turned out to be something stupid like "A pro-man-mad-climate-change journal, written for and mostly read by people who believe in man-made climate change, held a poll and discovered that 897% of their readers... believed in man-made climate change".

None of this is a reflection of what I may or may not believe about man-made climate change, so you don't need to waste perfectly good electrons trying to prove or disprove it unless it really means that much to you. My issue is with stupid claims such as "97% of..." when it's impossible that you asked everyone, and highly improbable that even a truly representative subgroup was chosen from which that number could be extrapolated.

Why improbable? Because enough people have screamed and shouted and waved their fists in the air, that people are genuinely scared to voice a real opinion on the matter. It says a lot when government officials start openly discussing legal action against those who are not repeating their preferred message.



www.cnsnews.com... news/article/melanie-hunter/ag-lynch-doj-has-discussed-whether-pursue-legal-action-against-climate

Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change deniers.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

No... no... no.

You may want to dismiss what I wrote as "feels" and opinion, but it is not. What I posted happen to be facts. You may not like the way I present them, but that does not change what they are. A person has no right to state that they are pro-liberty and Freedom, unless they disagree with these measures. Simply put they are FACTUALLY mutually exclusive positions. One cannot be pro-liberty and pro-ban. One cannot be a lover of freedom, and at the same time want to restrict the freedom of others, no matter what their nation of origin. It IS a fundamental of liberty loving and freedom loving people, that they would rather die themselves than see infringements inflicted on others, and furthermore it is a fact that people who understand the concepts of liberty and freedom correctly, do not make distinctions between citizens and non-citizens.

And rather than just go off, heres my take on what ought to be happening instead of a travel ban...

Baldly, I want America to take responsibility for its foreign policy FAILURES over the last twenty years, starting with cancelling this travel ban to the point where things are as they were before it, then organising with aid groups to get persecuted persons out of danger zones, and yes, housed on US soil. I want my government in the UK to be doing that as well. I want the administration of both countries to cease either official or unofficial links and agreements with the Saudi government, to supply weapons, aid and money to terror groups in the Middle East, as I KNOW they have currently. I want both nations to cease any and all military action not solely limited to border defence (that includes any foreign deployment of either armed forces or intelligence assets, special forces, or any other asset). I want all troops, intelligence officers, private contractors in all fields, whether PMC or industrial/infrastructural, removed from the danger zones as well.

I want all funds normally allocated to continuing offensive missions against any targets in the Middle East, reallocated to allow for the care of refugees instead, because unlike EVERY OTHER APPROACH, these will slow down the creation of radicals much faster than bombings which make more recruits than they kill.


I didn't dismiss anything, it just wasn't relevant to the OP. This is much better though, ta.

Sorry can't help myself - "Baldly, I want America to take responsibility for its foreign policy FAILURES over the last twenty years".

I'm sure they could do that with or without hair if they so wished!!


Anyway, I can't disagree with anything you have said. But what I don't get is, how can you scry what the outcome of this temporary ban will be? Would more confidence in the immigration system not make it easier for the really needy to be helped in the long run?

Is it impossible to imagine that a travel ban, for the purposes of improving the immigration process, would improve the immigration process?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Did not answer the question I see. Telling.

As for your announcement about the nations on the ban list, how quaint. Saudi Arabia beheads people for no reason that any civilised nation would consider reasonable. It stones people, tortures them in the street, and is just as responsible for 9/11 as the persons who piloted those planes into collision with buildings, and the ground. Why is it not on the list? Because the list has no meaning. Its nonsense. Its a business map is all it is.

It says "These countries are not right and we do not want any immigration from here, because we do not make money in those countries. But these countries over here, those not on the list? THEIR barbarism does not mean diddly to us, hell, not even their exporting of Wahhabi terror all over the Middle East, AND their sponsoring of attacks on US soil means a damn! Why? Well, they are a very rich powerful country, and we like their money, like to do business there. Its the best business, believe me, WELL worth selling out for."

Its nonsense. Justify it anyway you like, but it still does not actually make it justifiable!



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

en.wikipedia.org...'_views_on_climate_change

There will be some significant sourcing and links to various studies, surveys and samples on this page.

Have a look at those!



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

No... no... no.

You may want to dismiss what I wrote as "feels" and opinion, but it is not.


It absolutely is.

The biggest shame is that I've read many of your posts over the years, and I know you're better than this. What happened to that welcome voice of rationality and reason? You've gone off the deep end a bit recently, and that calm collected logic that garnered you respect has devolved into... well, this.

We want TrueBrit back, the sharp of wit and incisive of insight TrueBrit that we all know and love - in a strictly platonic way, not a "getting too friendly in the shower after a game of rugby" way.
edit on Ev18TuesdayTuesdayAmerica/ChicagoTue, 31 Jan 2017 10:18:10 -06007202017b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

" Fully open borders? All the world holding hands under a rainbow? "

That's precisely what they want, ne, DEMAND!

But honestly, I think you knew this. Look, in the US it's probably the same as the UK, the people protesting are all Leftist Urbanite City dwellers, and many are recent immigrants themselves. It is the same "free lunch" bunch coupled with wealthy 1%ers that want to appear all up liberal progressive. They get all the Press/Media focus because the Media agrees with them and serves as their cheeleading propaganda outlets.

Its all about open borders and erasing the concept of the nation state. Always has been.


Agreed.

"Multicultarism" has generally worked well, when it has happened "organically". But the kind of forced diversity we have had for decades, whilst painted as being about togetherness and inclusion, at it's heart is intended to destroy EVERYONES culture. The natives and the migrants have to adjust and thus both lose their traditions.

It's very hard to unilaterally rule over a populace that values it's culture and traditions, so these must go first!!

Thanks for your input.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

A ban for ninety days is not long enough to make any structural difference to the immigration system, not a blind bit of difference. So yes, it is impossible to believe that this ban is anything other than an ideological move, rather than an attempt to give the immigration system a breather and a chance to adjust to new working conditions. Its nonsense.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

en.wikipedia.org...'_views_on_climate_change

There will be some significant sourcing and links to various studies, surveys and samples on this page.

Have a look at those!


I did. The 97% is lifted from Cook et al (2013) and widely criticised, including by scientists claiming that Cook misrepresented their work and falsely identified them as supporting the proposition.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

No you don't want that guy around EvillerBob. The time for that guy past, when a nation I once respected embraced the credo of my sworn enemy, the weak, the phobic, the scared, the pathetically in need of security, rather than embracing the liberty they falsely claimed to uphold, and voting left of the middle, all day, in all states. You might as well of told me to go **** myself. The fact that any one of you are happy about it is just adding insult to injury.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
There is nothing wrong with preventing groups/culture from coming into a country who will eventually be able to vote let alone those prone to terrorism, welfare usage and criminality. It is an attempt at self preservation. If I increase the voting populace with people who like big government, small government and hence freedom dies.
Do not let a leftist or open borders libertarian tell you differently.

If I have a state government with 1.3million people in liberty loving NH and then add 1 million communist to that state what happens?
If I swap the peoples of the US and China, What do you think would happen to the governments of these countries, What happens to the US government when ran by chinese?

Open borders libertarians are politically suicidal. They want to be martyrs, in order to convince big government groups/cultures of people to become small government cultures. It will not work, they are idiots.

Trump did not go far enough. Preventing large scale immigration from cultures who love big government is imperative.

Eventually the public will understand how culture influences government, productivity, etc. It may be too late by the time it is accepted as a non-debatable fact.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

A ban for ninety days is not long enough to make any structural difference to the immigration system, not a blind bit of difference. So yes, it is impossible to believe that this ban is anything other than an ideological move, rather than an attempt to give the immigration system a breather and a chance to adjust to new working conditions. Its nonsense.


Fair enough. I'm genuinely pleased you took part dude. I would have liked some of the more outspoken critics to chime in, but thank you for playing.

As to your last point, the guys has done an awful lot (whether good or bad) in 2 weeks. What could he do in 90 days?



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

No you don't want that guy around EvillerBob. The time for that guy past, when a nation I once respected embraced the credo of my sworn enemy, the weak, the phobic, the scared, the pathetically in need of security, rather than embracing the liberty they falsely claimed to uphold, and voting left of the middle, all day, in all states. You might as well of told me to go **** myself. The fact that any one of you are happy about it is just adding insult to injury.


Whoa whoa WHOOOAAAA buster!! Hang on right there!!

Are you saying that unless you vote left, you can't be ideologically libertarian?!?

I thought the left was about redistribution of wealth, but what do I know...

How libertarian is it to decry 100,000,000 peoples opinions as worthless because they don't allign with yours??

SMDH




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join