Trump on security
Comments
-
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".HoustonHusky said: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...
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. -
nominated.2001400ex said:
"I believe what I think you be true based on reading all angles."HoustonHusky said: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... -
You are neither...you are are really dumb nut job.2001400ex said:
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".HoustonHusky said: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...
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...
-
d2d said:
nominated.2001400ex said:
"I believe what I think you be true based on reading all angles."HoustonHusky said: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...
