Stick a fork in it the EO it's done.

Nm

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: knoxie

some of us are concerned about other people not just ourselves.

Ohhhh man....the irony! Smh....

I hope the highest court strikes the ban out of existence QUICKLY. There are bigger fish to fry. "Bans" will be better received after the next radical Islam terrorist(s) attacks the U.S..

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: daryllyn

Are you saying none of those things you mentioned have rules/laws in order to mitigate damage and stop them from killing people?

Not what I said at all.

I was pointing out a few very obvious problems with the EO.

1. Saudi Arabia not being on the list, despite being the country of origin of 15 of the 9/11 hijackers, who pulled off one of the largest scale terror act in recent history.

If this ban is to prevent radical terrorists from entering, why on earth would SA not be on the list?

2. Business interests as a motivator in which countries were banned. Who was going to lose out financially, if some of these other countries were on the list?

I don't see why more people aren't asking more questions.

a reply to: daryllyn

Your point seemed to be there are bigger problems so we should not address this.

Saudi Arabia was named as a possible country to be added.

However, both were questioned as to the nations on the list and why other Muslim-majority nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, with a history of terrorism were not included.

"Perhaps other countries need to be added to an executive order going forward," Priebus said.

Maybe instead of railing against Trump you can support him and try to get those countries added. Seems more productive.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Maybe you should see that statement for what it is, damage control.

a reply to: daskakik

And what does that have to do with my point, which is if you think SA should be on the list, then demanding there be no list won't get it on?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
And what does that have to do with my point, which is if you think SA should be on the list, then demanding there be no list won't get it on?

That your point is BS because SA was never going to be on that list anyway and them saying that it could have been going forward is blowing smoke up your ...


ETA: Pointing out that SA wasn't on the list doesn't necessarily mean that people approve of the ban.

a reply to: daskakik

So you can't answer my question. Thought so. Get back to me when you have an actual response, and not a bunch of words avoiding the question.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Maybe the answer you want is in the edit I made.

If not then tough.

a reply to: daskakik

If you don't think SA should be on a list then why complain it's not when you agree it shouldn't be. That would be something a true partisan idiot who is just looking to complain would do.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If you don't think SA should be on a list then why complain it's not when you agree it shouldn't be. That would be something a true partisan idiot who is just looking to complain would do.

Pointing out shady moves by the president is something that every citizen should do. They should also be on the look out for when they try to do damage control.

This isn't about me. He's not my president.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If you don't think SA should be on a list then why complain it's not when you agree it shouldn't be. That would be something a true partisan idiot who is just looking to complain would do.

Pointing out shady moves by the president is something that every citizen should do.

This isn't about me. He's not my president.

If you think SA should not be on the list then how is not including them shady?

If you are not an American citizen then why do you care. Just like Americans should butt out of other countries, the reverse is true.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A persons opinion on the ban doesn't change how that list was put together or the reason why SA wasn't on it.

I really can't believe that that seems like such a difficult things to understand.

ETA: It is on ATS and I am a citizen of ATS. You are free to ignore me.

a reply to: daskakik

Don't complain when America sticks it's nose into your countries business.

Why would SA be on it if you think they shouldn't be. That makes no sense.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Don't complain when America sticks it's nose into your countries business.

I might, then you will be free to call me a hypocrite.

Why would SA be on it if you think they shouldn't be. That makes no sense.

Who said I think that they shouldn't be?

Let's see if this clears it up for you.

Someone who isn't me: "I disagree with the ban but if there is going to be one then SA should be on that list. The fact that it isn't shows that the admin has certain loyalties."

Thats some epic mental gynnastics.

Complain about a country that wasn't on a list when they don't agree with having the list to begin with.

a reply to: neo96

Not really.

ETA: Let's see if we can put it into terms you recognize.

If the president passed an EO banning all guns except S&W then someone like yourself might say: "I am against the ban on firearms but the fact that S&W isn't on the list raises a flag."

a reply to: daskakik

Use another example, because guns are part of our constitutional rights as American citizens while visas and green cards are not.

originally posted by: marg6043
Use another example, because guns are part of our constitutional rights as American citizens while visas and green cards are not.

No, the use of guns was because it is something near and dear to neo's heart.

Besides, SA not making the list isn't about visas and green cards either.