Spending two years vetting nonexistent databases should fix everything. And did we start already vetting the 100,000 Syrians he wants to bring in next year? Didn't think so...
I agree with Hondo on some things but he's blinded by his news sources on this one. Amy Goodman won't tell you the real deal all the time bud.
I didn't get anything from any news source. It's just common sense, it's not like tomorrow we are going to let 6,200 (62% of 10,000) military grade men into our country as Houston suggests. And it's not like there's no vetting process that others are suggesting.
I'm going to use everyone's favorite gun control example. Do you really think ISIS is going to enter our country legally? No they are going to get in the same way they do right now.
Spending two years vetting nonexistent databases should fix everything. And did we start already vetting the 100,000 Syrians he wants to bring in next year? Didn't think so...
Effin moron...
Where are you getting 100,000? It's 10,000, and yes I would imagine the process has already started.
What do you think would be more difficult to do; be successfully vetted and allowed into the US as a refugee, or travel to the US as a tourist? You don't have to establish residency before you shoot up a theater.
Spending two years vetting nonexistent databases should fix everything. And did we start already vetting the 100,000 Syrians he wants to bring in next year? Didn't think so...
Effin moron...
Where are you getting 100,000? It's 10,000, and yes I would imagine the process has already started.
What do you think would be more difficult to do; be successfully vetted and allowed into the US as a refugee, or travel to the US as a tourist? You don't have to establish residency before you shoot up a theater.
No, it's actually 65,000 if you want to get specific.
"I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000"
Spending two years vetting nonexistent databases should fix everything. And did we start already vetting the 100,000 Syrians he wants to bring in next year? Didn't think so...
Effin moron...
Where are you getting 100,000? It's 10,000, and yes I would imagine the process has already started.
What do you think would be more difficult to do; be successfully vetted and allowed into the US as a refugee, or travel to the US as a tourist? You don't have to establish residency before you shoot up a theater.
No, it's actually 65,000 if you want to get specific.
"I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000"
Keep trying...
I thought a good start was 10,000 attorneys buried to their neck in sand?
It's actually hilarious you, a supposedly educated person, buys off on the GOP scare machine. Like what has been mentioned, ISIS will not enter legally under this program. You act like ISIS isn't already here.
Its not surprising you, a moron, are lapping this up when even many of your fellow Liberals think its FS.
Anyone should be offended by this on many fronts. We aren't a dictatorship...the law is pretty clear on who is classified as a refugee. When the president can't get that right its not a good start. On top of that, the law is the law...you want to expand it then pass a law raising the numbers allowed as refugees. You can just decree 'We will do this' when the law doesn't say that...like it or not, that's not how our system works. And if you are actually interested in helping people, you can much more efficiently help more refugees by not flying them here and paying them via government subsidies but instead setting up safe zones either there or near there (Turkey?). Its what Clinton did in the 90s...for the same cost you can help at least 5x to 10x the number of people. And to top that off, if you think you could accurately do background checks on 65,000 refugees a year from a country with no infrastructure then you are as FS as you appear to be.
Its not surprising you, a moron, are lapping this up when even many of your fellow Liberals think its FS.
Anyone should be offended by this on many fronts. We aren't a dictatorship...the law is pretty clear on who is classified as a refugee. When the president can't get that right its not a good start. On top of that, the law is the law...you want to expand it then pass a law raising the numbers allowed as refugees. You can just decree 'We will do this' when the law doesn't say that...like it or not, that's not how our system works. And if you are actually interested in helping people, you can much more efficiently help more refugees by not flying them here and paying them via government subsidies but instead setting up safe zones either there or near there (Turkey?). Its what Clinton did in the 90s...for the same cost you can help at least 5x to 10x the number of people. And to top that off, if you think you could accurately do background checks on 65,000 refugees a year from a country with no infrastructure then you are as FS as you appear to be.
HondoFS...
Again more bullshit. Now you just moved the goal posts from "62% are military grade men" to "there's no way 65,000 people can be vetted".
Look, I don't care what other liberals or conservatives say. Not sure how many times I can tell you this. I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I believe what I think you be true based on reading all angles. Unlike you.
Its not surprising you, a moron, are lapping this up when even many of your fellow Liberals think its FS.
Anyone should be offended by this on many fronts. We aren't a dictatorship...the law is pretty clear on who is classified as a refugee. When the president can't get that right its not a good start. On top of that, the law is the law...you want to expand it then pass a law raising the numbers allowed as refugees. You can just decree 'We will do this' when the law doesn't say that...like it or not, that's not how our system works. And if you are actually interested in helping people, you can much more efficiently help more refugees by not flying them here and paying them via government subsidies but instead setting up safe zones either there or near there (Turkey?). Its what Clinton did in the 90s...for the same cost you can help at least 5x to 10x the number of people. And to top that off, if you think you could accurately do background checks on 65,000 refugees a year from a country with no infrastructure then you are as FS as you appear to be.
HondoFS...
"I believe what I think you be true based on reading all angles."
Its not surprising you, a moron, are lapping this up when even many of your fellow Liberals think its FS.
Anyone should be offended by this on many fronts. We aren't a dictatorship...the law is pretty clear on who is classified as a refugee. When the president can't get that right its not a good start. On top of that, the law is the law...you want to expand it then pass a law raising the numbers allowed as refugees. You can just decree 'We will do this' when the law doesn't say that...like it or not, that's not how our system works. And if you are actually interested in helping people, you can much more efficiently help more refugees by not flying them here and paying them via government subsidies but instead setting up safe zones either there or near there (Turkey?). Its what Clinton did in the 90s...for the same cost you can help at least 5x to 10x the number of people. And to top that off, if you think you could accurately do background checks on 65,000 refugees a year from a country with no infrastructure then you are as FS as you appear to be.
HondoFS...
Again more bullshit. Now you just moved the goal posts from "62% are military grade men" to "there's no way 65,000 people can be vetted".
Look, I don't care what other liberals or conservatives say. Not sure how many times I can tell you this. I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I believe what I think you be true based on reading all angles. Unlike you.
You are neither...you are are really dumb nut job.
And I walked back neither...62% of the Syrian immigrants into Europe have been military age men. Its a UN "fact", which means it is probably higher (as they originally reported). And Obama wants to ignore Federal law and let in 100,000 refugees next year, 65,000 of which will be from Syria (go look at where the rest will be from...).
These are not difficult concepts to understand, unless of course you are HondoRFS...
Its not surprising you, a moron, are lapping this up when even many of your fellow Liberals think its FS.
Anyone should be offended by this on many fronts. We aren't a dictatorship...the law is pretty clear on who is classified as a refugee. When the president can't get that right its not a good start. On top of that, the law is the law...you want to expand it then pass a law raising the numbers allowed as refugees. You can just decree 'We will do this' when the law doesn't say that...like it or not, that's not how our system works. And if you are actually interested in helping people, you can much more efficiently help more refugees by not flying them here and paying them via government subsidies but instead setting up safe zones either there or near there (Turkey?). Its what Clinton did in the 90s...for the same cost you can help at least 5x to 10x the number of people. And to top that off, if you think you could accurately do background checks on 65,000 refugees a year from a country with no infrastructure then you are as FS as you appear to be.
HondoFS...
"I believe what I think you be true based on reading all angles."
Comments
Effin moron...
I'm going to use everyone's favorite gun control example. Do you really think ISIS is going to enter our country legally? No they are going to get in the same way they do right now.
What do you think would be more difficult to do; be successfully vetted and allowed into the US as a refugee, or travel to the US as a tourist? You don't have to establish residency before you shoot up a theater.
"I love poor, freedom yearning brown people, the other guys hates them."
"I love keeping our nation secure, the other guys hate America."
Our immigration situation is not Europe's. The simpler way to get Jihadi Joe into the country remains walking him through the Southern border.
"I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000"
Keep trying...
It's actually hilarious you, a supposedly educated person, buys off on the GOP scare machine. Like what has been mentioned, ISIS will not enter legally under this program. You act like ISIS isn't already here.
Anyone should be offended by this on many fronts. We aren't a dictatorship...the law is pretty clear on who is classified as a refugee. When the president can't get that right its not a good start. On top of that, the law is the law...you want to expand it then pass a law raising the numbers allowed as refugees. You can just decree 'We will do this' when the law doesn't say that...like it or not, that's not how our system works. And if you are actually interested in helping people, you can much more efficiently help more refugees by not flying them here and paying them via government subsidies but instead setting up safe zones either there or near there (Turkey?). Its what Clinton did in the 90s...for the same cost you can help at least 5x to 10x the number of people. And to top that off, if you think you could accurately do background checks on 65,000 refugees a year from a country with no infrastructure then you are as FS as you appear to be.
HondoFS...
Look, I don't care what other liberals or conservatives say. Not sure how many times I can tell you this. I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I believe what I think you be true based on reading all angles. Unlike you.
And I walked back neither...62% of the Syrian immigrants into Europe have been military age men. Its a UN "fact", which means it is probably higher (as they originally reported). And Obama wants to ignore Federal law and let in 100,000 refugees next year, 65,000 of which will be from Syria (go look at where the rest will be from...).
These are not difficult concepts to understand, unless of course you are HondoRFS...