Jump to content

OT: Another Attack in London


thc6795

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Says the guy that I've been reading calling other people bitches and what not for a few days now...

 

Know that is nothing different I have been consistent from day one. I'll call a bitch a bitch all day. You have been on even keel from the get go tonight your different. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

Know that is nothing different I have been consistent from day one. I'll call a bitch a bitch all day. You have been on even keel from the get go tonight your different. 

Yeah, you're probably right. 

I should just move along and skip these things that I feel strongly about and just ignore the opinions I don't agree with. 

Oh damn. Sounds just like our guberment. 

:P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Yeah, you're probably right. 

I should just move along and skip these things that I feel strongly about and just ignore the opinions I don't agree with. 

Oh damn. Sounds just like our guberment. 

:P

Out of likes bro have a good nite. 

God bless those people in England and the human race.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point to me the part of the constitution that prohibits a travel ban for non-citizens.  It does not exist.  And yet we cannot even implement that.  We are unserious about this.  We rely too much on intelligence gathering, which misses too many potential attackers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bormio said:

Point to me the part of the constitution that prohibits a travel ban for non-citizens.  It does not exist.  And yet we cannot even implement that.  We are unserious about this.  We rely too much on intelligence gathering, which misses too many potential attackers.

We could implement that, had Mr. President not created this issue of a religious test with all of his vast array of foreign policy knowledge and talking points for the last few years.

I wish he would have not boxed himself in on that actually. The fact remains that he did. 

I seriously don't have a problem with changing or strengthening the vetting/entry process for high risk areas. What I do have a problem with, is the stupid hard nosed rhetoric that can't be dismissed now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HawgGoneIt said:

We could implement that, had Mr. President not created this issue of a religious test with all of his vast array of foreign policy knowledge and talking points for the last few years.

I wish he would have not boxed himself in on that actually. The fact remains that he did. 

I seriously don't have a problem with changing or strengthening the vetting/entry process for high risk areas. What I do have a problem with, is the stupid hard nosed rhetoric that can't be dismissed now.

His proposed travel ban has no religious test.  It prohibits travel from certain countries with a high rate of terrorist activity.  But our judiciary insists on inserting their political views in stopping it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, why doesn't he just go ahead and change the vetting while we are watching him flail in the courts? He wanted a 6 month ban in order to do that. Five months later... 

What has he changed in the process? Has he been looking into it at all? Or has this become about something else at this point?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bormio said:

His proposed travel ban has no religious test.  It prohibits travel from certain countries with a high rate of terrorist activity.  But our judiciary insists on inserting their political views in stopping it.

I know that has been the consistent argument. 7-3 decision most recently saying that the rhetoric leading up to the actual proposal of the EO does basically create the atmosphere of a religious test. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HawgGoneIt said:

I know that has been the consistent argument. 7-3 decision most recently saying that the rhetoric leading up to the actual proposal of the EO does basically create the atmosphere of a religious test. 

 

Which is exactly why these people should not be judges.  The law is what the law says - not some superfluous political rhetoric.  They do not like the travel ban - so rule against it with no sound legal footing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bormio said:

Which is exactly why these people should not be judges.  The law is what the law says - not some superfluous political rhetoric.  They do not like the travel ban - so rule against it with no sound legal footing.

Maybe this is true. I'm sure that we will eventually get a clearance of whether simply removing the word Muslim from the front of ban for the purposes of the actual EO is good enough to cross the religious test threshold as prescribed by the constitution. 

I think that there is a problem erasing the consistent use of words leading up to the order, and that the past usage of religious words by the president hangs over his order still. 

If he had bounced along the trail saying we need to stop immigration from the middle east rather than saying ban muslims, the order would have stood the second time after he fixed the hurried version. 

He didn't say it that way though. And to ask the courts to pretend he did and just defer to him certainly erases the checks and balances allowed us, to protect us all from authoritarian rule.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

Busy day for the Religion of Peace. 

it's dopes like you who need to call a entire religion out for the act of a deranged person who are the problem...this only makes the tensions and problem worse and feeds into what these nuts believe...what religion was the guy in Portland?...does it matter?...he was a white American?..was his religion a peaceful one as all are??....one days you guys on the right will wake up...I hope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GardenStateBaller said:

What does London's Muslim Mayor, Sadiq Khan, have to say so far tonight about these turn of events? Anything? 

...Muslim Mayor??...what is he suppose to say? that he feels sorry for the guys who did this because they are Muslim too?..Is that what you're expecting??...what does the mayor's religion have to do with anything???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!"

Trump

if it were here,  guns with semi's could have easily taken out a hundred or more

good grief

then our genius says, 

"We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse"

and

"We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"

Seems we have been pretty damned good at protecting ourselves to this point, post 911.

--------------------------------------

This is the only tweet that was appropriate from the clown in charge. An adult must have grabber his phone. 

"Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the U. K., we will be there - WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...