Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Opportunistic Outrage:

 

https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannReality...068390107/

Quote:Zero refugees from countries on the travel ban killed anyone in terrorist attacks on American soil.


How do you like that truth?

 

So tell me why you think 0bama selected them?

 

Be honest and truthful.  I know that's difficult for you.  You can at least try to fake it.

Quote:So tell me why you think 0bama selected them?


Be honest and truthful.

Because these are areas destabilized since the Arab Spring in 2011 and have had war and terrorist activity in these regions.


Doesn't change the fact we have had thousands of people vetted and granted asylum here without incident. So yes. Vet them. And reject them if there is just cause. I'm not opposed to vetting them.


Zero incidents with respect to refugees. Maybe they are what they say they are. Maybe EXTREME vetting is not necessary if the existing process is yielding zero incidents of domestic terrorism.

Quote:Zero refugees from countries on the travel ban killed anyone in terrorist attacks on American soil.


How do you like that truth?

Nevermind how its working out for the europeans, what's going on in those countries, or the fact that we don't have intelligence capabilities to vet those coming in. Nevermind that computer errors have already allowed people in the countries mentioned to come here with no screening. And nevermind that we have foiled plots. That's inconsequential.

Quote:Because these are areas destabilized since the Arab Spring in 2011 and have had war and terrorist activity in these regions.


Doesn't change the fact we have had thousands of people vetted and granted asylum here without incident. So yes. Vet them. And reject them if there is just cause. I'm not opposed to vetting them.


Zero incidents with respect to refugees. Maybe they are what they say they are. Maybe EXTREME vetting is not necessary if the existing process is yielding zero incidents of domestic terrorism.

In Syria there s nothing to VET people against. You keep talking like comet and Brennan haven't already exposed this. Also there are over 1000 active Isis investigations.

Quote:Because these are areas destabilized since the Arab Spring in 2011 and have had war and terrorist activity in these regions.


Doesn't change the fact we have had thousands of people vetted and granted asylum here without incident. So yes. Vet them. And reject them if there is just cause. I'm not opposed to vetting them.


Zero incidents with respect to refugees. Maybe they are what they say they are. Maybe EXTREME vetting is not necessary if the existing process is yielding zero incidents of domestic terrorism.

Zero incidents is simply not true! What about the guy just recently at Ohio State? Anyways, here are a few more for ya:

 

• Mohamed Osman Mohamud- 2010
  
• Two Iraqi refugees- 2011
  
• Abdullatif Ali Aldosary- 2012
  
• Tsarnaev brothers - 2012
  
• Fazliddin Kurbanov- 2013
  
• Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan - 2013
  

Perhaps you saw how the House of Commons and their response to the travel ban. Unanimous outrage on both sides of the house (if only our Congress could agree on something). 1.5 million people signed a petition to reject Trump's state visit (in a country of 64 million). Google Nadhim Zahawi, a conservative (Tory) MP and what he had to say. Whatever you're amateur analysis of Europe may be, Britain isn't subscribing.

Quote:Perhaps you saw how the House of Commons and their response to the travel ban. Unanimous outrage on both sides of the house (if only our Congress could agree on something). 1.5 million people signed a petition to reject Trump's state visit (in a country of 64 million). Google Nadhim Zahawi, a conservative (Tory) MP and what he had to say. Whatever you're amateur analysis of Europe may be, Britain isn't subscribing.

 

1.5 out of 64 isn't much.  You liberals like the "majority rules" argument.  1.5 million is hardly a majority.

Quote:Zero incidents is simply not true! What about the guy just recently at Ohio State? Anyways, here are a few more for ya:

• Mohamed Osman Mohamud- 2010
• Two Iraqi refugees- 2011
• Abdullatif Ali Aldosary- 2012
• Tsarnaev brothers - 2012
• Fazliddin Kurbanov- 2013
• Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan - 2013

Mohamud was a student, not a refugee.

Aldosary came legally in 1997.

Tsarnaev brothers were raised in Kyrgyzstan (not on the banned countries list) and were naturalized.

Kurbanov was from Uzbekistan (not on list of banned countries)

Al Hardan killed who exactly?

Abdul Razak Ali Artan is close. Stabbed people. Zero deaths.

Quote:1.5 out of 64 isn't much. You liberals like the "majority rules" argument. 1.5 million is hardly a majority.

Of all citizens.. signed the petition. Still going at a rate of 10 signatures per second. This isn't voter turnout. This is massive protest.

Quote:Mohamud was a student, not a refugee.

Aldosary came legally in 1997.

Tsarnaev brothers were raised in Kyrgyzstan (not on the banned countries list) and were naturalized.

Kurbanov was from Uzbekistan (not on list of banned countries)

Al Hardan killed who exactly?

Abdul Razak Ali Artan is close. Stabbed people. Zero deaths.

Pathetic...

 

- Came to US under resettlement program

- Came legally in 1997, green card denied, never deported.

- Chechen and still a refugee incident with which you claim zero without specifying a country.

- Once again you claimed zero refugee incidents.

- Planted bombs in Texas (incident)

- Refugee incident regardless of deaths

 

Typical. Move the goal posts when you get called out.

Quote:Pathetic...


- Came to US under resettlement program

- Came legally in 1997, green card denied, never deported.

- Chechen and still a refugee incident with which you claim zero without specifying a country.

- Once again you claimed zero refugee incidents.

- Planted bombs in Texas (incident)

- Refugee incident regardless of deaths


Typical. Move the goal posts when you get called out.

My apologies. Was multitasking when I posted. Zero deaths from refugees on banned countries list was what I meant to post.


Still.. does the list provided warrant the action taken? You would argue it does. I would call it counterproductive and divisive. Terrorist groups are calling it the blessed ban and using it as proof we are at war with Islam. And the rest of the world is condemning it.

Looking back that is what I originally posted.


I apologize for creating confusion by not carrying it over to the post you responded to.

Quote:My apologies. Was multitasking when I posted. Zero deaths from refugees on banned countries list was what I meant to post.


Still.. does the list provided warrant the action taken? You would argue it does. I would call it counterproductive and divisive. Terrorist groups are calling it the blessed ban and using it as proof we are at war with Islam. And the rest of the world is condemning it.

The bottom line is other countries really dislike Americans. Even the ones we have friendly government relations with. Our immigration policies aren't going to make them dislike us even more. They don't need any more excuses than the fact we are known as loud and arrogant Americans that meddles in world affairs.

 

But what you are still hung up on thinking is that this is a Muslim ban. The countries on the list only represent less than 8% of Muslim populations. What they do have in common is know radicalization and they also have no diplomatic process of vetting or assisting the US with vetting the folks that want to come into this country. Whether we currently have refugees or not from these countries residing in the US is irrelevant at this point. There were some mistakes and laws being ignored. The country is moving forward in upholding and fixing known issues. You yourself said you support vetting, but you still argue against. Do you believe you can move freely from one country to another without being subjected to those countries policies? Why aren't we allowed to have a US interest without fear of disdain from outside our borders? What is your end game or the point you are trying to make in all this? Not the media's words, not some other countries words, but your words as a U.S. citizen.

Quote:The bottom line is other countries really dislike Americans. Even the ones we have friendly government relations with. Our immigration policies aren't going to make them dislike us even more. They don't need any more excuses than the fact we are known as loud and arrogant Americans that meddles in world affairs.

 

But what you are still hung up on thinking is that this is a Muslim ban. The countries on the list only represent less than 8% of Muslim populations. What they do have in common is know radicalization and they also have no diplomatic process of vetting or assisting the US with vetting the folks that want to come into this country. Whether we currently have refugees or not from these countries residing in the US is irrelevant at this point. There were some mistakes and laws being ignored. The country is moving forward in upholding and fixing known issues. You yourself said you support vetting, but you still argue against. Do you believe you can move freely from one country to another without being subjected to those countries policies? Why aren't we allowed to have a US interest without fear of disdain from outside our borders? What is your end game or the point you are trying to make in all this? Not the media's words, not some other countries words, but your words as a U.S. citizen.

 



 

 

 

The stupid liberal argument(s) in this thread fail to acknowledge the fact that the list in the EO was drafted by the 0bama administration regime.  President Trump is actually doing something about it and liberals are upset about it.

 

To get back to the topic of the OP, it has nothing to do with business interests and everything to do with The Constitution that says that we establish our government to "provide for the common defense" among other things.  That's exactly what this EO does.

 

Like it or not, banning and/or further scrutinizing people from certain areas of the world is not only sound policy, but is something that should have happened a long time ago.

If Obama is against it, then we're on the right track.

So if it's Obama's list it is bad policy right? That's how it works. Obama = baaaad

Quote:So if it's Obama's list it is bad policy right? That's how it works. Obama = baaaad

Essentially, yes. Ever seen the Seinfeld episode where George does the opposite?