T1B

Dinsdale wrote:So, how's all those "Syrian refugees" working out for Canada?

No sooner does your PM say Canada will take all the Islamatards that the US turns away, then they go commit a terrorist act... as ifto prove Trump right.

Dinsdale wrote:Yeah, I bought into some fake-news. Fuckin internet.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Yeah, I bought into some fake-news. Fuckin internet.

Yeah, those fake-news sites are really hard to tell.

I'm amazed you were able to find the power button on all those computers you took out of boxes...

KC Scott wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Yeah, I bought into some fake-news. Fuckin internet.

Et tu?

Seriously though, I don't know WTF is real or not anymore

Yahoo had this article on the news feed yesterday that the ACLU had obtained a stay against the immigration executive order, yet as of this morning no other news outlet reported it, so it must be bullshit...... right?

Mikey wrote:

88 wrote:
Trump is not trying to ban all Muslims, which is the bullshit strawman position your article argues against. Trump is attempting to prevent people who intend to commit acts of terror on our soil from immigrating here. Whether and how he can effectively do that is subject to debate. But the debate is not one that involves the Constitution.

They're preventing people who have already been vetted, who already have green cards or permanent residence status and have lived here for years, from re-entering the country.

I guess the fact that they are all Muslims is just a coincidence.

KC Scott wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Yeah, I bought into some fake-news. Fuckin internet.

Et tu?

Seriously though, I don't know WTF is real or not anymore

Yahoo had this article on the news feed yesterday that the ACLU had obtained a stay against the immigration executive order, yet as of this morning no other news outlet reported it, so it must be bullshit...... right?

KC Scott wrote:
It's also amazing how many ignorant people don't know the difference between an exec order and a law or how the 3 branches work

Dr_Phibes wrote:

88 wrote: What makes Bannon unqualified to serve as a member of the NSC? If he is capable of holding a top secret security clearance, he would appear to be qualified. It isn't like he doesn't have the President's ear already.

Not addressed to me, but an exercise in common sense?

As an advisory committee, it should contain nothing but specialists in their chosen field. It's a resource for obtaining technical information and basing your decisions on the information you receive.

It strikes me that the value is compromised, when you appoint your political advisor, batman, guru - whatever their relationship to the principals committee. You run the risk of getting advice based on what someone wants you to hear, rather than sober analysis. I think Field Marshal BritBrite or whatever he is might be unqualified? Politicising military, strategic decisions is murky territory.

Moving Sale wrote:This hand wringing about Muslims comes from racist fucks like Rooster, but nice try you stupid silly fuck.

Dr_Phibes wrote:The vetting process for refugee claimants is already more stringent in any western country.

Rooster wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:This hand wringing about Muslims comes from racist fucks like Rooster, but nice try you stupid silly fuck.

Stupid? As in calling me a racist for being justifiably suspicious of a religious group? That kind of stupid? You must have gotten your law education from the University of Jamaica Law and Coconut Gathering, libtard. Being Muslim isn't a race, you idiot. How did you ever pass the bar exam? Oh, that's right, you didn't. You're probably a paralegal who gets sent out for coffee and Kinkos.

mvscal wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:The vetting process for refugee claimants is already more stringent in any western country.

There is no vetting process, you fucking idiot. It's not even possible.

"Hello, please. I am Suk Madiq from Kam al-Terd, Syria in ISIS controlled Buttfuckistan. My village is now a black spot on the road. Let me into your country and spend your money supporting me for the rest of my life."

Where do you start vetting somebody like that? Walk me through the procedure. Why should we even give a fuck? Get lost, you fucking diaperheads.

Mikey wrote:I also think this may be another of his smokescreens for something far more ominous, which would be his removal of the DNI and the chairman of the JCS from the principals committee of the NSC and replacing them with Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon, who is a white supremacist anarchist, avowed Leninist whose stated goal is to bring down the government of the United States.

Maybe he was cute as the crazy editor of Breitbart but this is starting to get serious.

mvscal wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:The vetting process for refugee claimants is already more stringent in any western country.

There is no vetting process, you fucking idiot. It's not even possible.

"Hello, please. I am Suk Madiq from Kam al-Terd, Syria in ISIS controlled Buttfuckistan. My village is now a black spot on the road. Let me into your country and spend your money supporting me for the rest of my life."

Where do you start vetting somebody like that? Walk me through the procedure. Why should we even give a fuck? Get lost, you fucking diaperheads.

Rooster wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:

88 wrote: What makes Bannon unqualified to serve as a member of the NSC? If he is capable of holding a top secret security clearance, he would appear to be qualified. It isn't like he doesn't have the President's ear already.

Not addressed to me, but an exercise in common sense?

As an advisory committee, it should contain nothing but specialists in their chosen field. It's a resource for obtaining technical information and basing your decisions on the information you receive.

It strikes me that the value is compromised, when you appoint your political advisor, batman, guru - whatever their relationship to the principals committee. You run the risk of getting advice based on what someone wants you to hear, rather than sober analysis. I think Field Marshal BritBrite or whatever he is might be unqualified? Politicising military, strategic decisions is murky territory.

Kinda like David Axelrod for the Obama administration, huh? Yeah, I know, that guy was totally qualified and unpolitical.

Python wrote:I have no idea what you just posted.

Goober McTuber wrote: That's OK. Neither does he.

Scott wrote:I watched a 60 minutes report on how they're vetting the Syrian refugees - here's the condenses version: http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/how-w ... es-vetted/

Keeping it real, I think Gov is probably doing a thorough job vetting them given it's an 18-24 month process- but what they omit is it costs $30,000 per person to do this vetting

My problem is why, when we at a record deficit, looking at a Medicare insolvency and can't take care of our own Vets are we spending this money on non-Citizens

Papa Willie wrote:

Mikey wrote:At least I'm not a racist FUCK.

How about a racist FUCKER?

Dr_Phibes wrote:But this is an odd one, fantasies about building a wall on a border is like everyone eat mangos on Tuesday.

Washington (CNN) — It's not just the southern border: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says it's "legitimate" to discuss building a wall separating the United States from Canada, as well.

The Republican presidential contender said the idea of a northern border has come up while he has campaigned in New Hampshire.

In an interview for NBC's "Meet the Press" available online, Walker said his tough talk to securing the borders and enforcing U.S. laws extends to the 5,525-mile Canadian border as well.

It's a shift from most campaign-trail rhetoric, which has focused on the United States' border with Mexico, where millions undocumented immigrants have entered the country.

"Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire," Walker said. "They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at."

Terrorist attacks have been plotted in Canada -- including the so-called "Millennium plot," a foiled 2000 plan in which an Algerian national planned to cross into the United States from Canada and bomb the Los Angeles International Airport.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, slammed the comments on Monday, saying that having grown up near the Canadian border, Walker's suggestion is to him "one of the craziest" ideas to come out of the election.

"Gov. Walker simply must be unaware of the economic prosperity that commerce across the northern border brings to the United States," Leahy said in a statement. "Those of us who represent states that share a border with Canada know better. ... It is disappointing but not surprising that yet another Republican presidential candidate is using the border to score cheap political points."

Walker has focused his immigration remarks on enforcing U.S. laws already on the books in recent weeks.

He ran into trouble two weeks ago after GOP front-runner Donald Trump proposed repealing the Fourteenth Amendment's mandate that children born in the United States automatically become citizens, regardless of their parents' legal status.

Walker first said he favored Trump's idea of repealing birthright citizenship. He backed off that stance days later, telling a reporter that he hasn't taken a position. And then last Sunday, he said that he isn't advocating any changes to laws on the books -- including the Fourteenth Amendment.

Despite taking three different positions in the course of a week, Walker insisted Sunday on NBC, his stance has been consistent.

Dr_Phibes wrote:It appears Trudeau's got a bit of his Dad in him