• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Republicans for POTUS, 2016 Edition

Oh you mean the point where because there are easier ways to get in then don't worry about it ?

No, the point where people who are lazy attack the hard ways to get in, because the easy ways to get in are hard to attack. Tell me why we should turn away tourists. Business people. Loved ones of citizens. Don't lay it on the refugees because they are the most politically expedient. And don't reward politicians that take the easy way out.
 
C
No, the point where people who are lazy attack the hard ways to get in, because the easy ways to get in are hard to attack. Tell me why we should turn away tourists. Business people. Loved ones of citizens. Don't lay it on the refugees because they are the most politically expedient. And don't reward politicians that take the easy way out.

Wow. I have never said deny anyone other than the "vetting" process is a joke and i can understand and even agree that we should be cautious and make sure we can make everyone feel more comfortable with it. Are you still happy with our vetting capabilities ?
 
C

Wow. I have never said deny anyone other than the "vetting" process is a joke and i can understand and even agree that we should be cautious and make sure we can make everyone feel more comfortable with it. Are you still happy with our vetting capabilities ?

Which "vetting" process do you think is a "joke" - the tourists? the business people? the fiances? the loved ones? the refugees? Do you disagree with all? Some?
 
Which "vetting" process do you think is a "joke" - the tourists? the business people? the fiances? the loved ones? the refugees? Do you disagree with all? Some?

So you are happy with them?
 
Which "vetting" process do you think is a "joke" - the tourists? the business people? the fiances? the loved ones? the refugees? Do you disagree with all? Some?[/

Which one of these that you mentioned is far easier to sneak into than refugees to wage jihad are you most comfortable with?
 
CNN released a new poll tonight on how the American people view the way that the Obama Administration is handling this problem. His disapproval rate is up to 68%.

I fully expect that number to go higher with each new domestic attack.

Muslim mass shooter: :willynilly:

Every other mass shooter:
 
Muslim mass shooter: :willynilly:

Every other mass shooter:

It's unfortunate that you can not grasp the difference between a mass shooter acting alone and a terrorist funded building pipe bombs and following a radical ideology. Boston Marathon didn't use any guns. Pipe bombs are banned. I don't know why we can't tackle radical muslims without making this a islamaphobic issue.
 
So you are happy with them?

Which one of these that you mentioned is far easier to sneak into than refugees to wage jihad are you most comfortable with?

What? All are easier. Hence the argument. Which are you ready to cut off? Tourists? Business people? Loved ones? Do you think your favored politicians are OK with cutting off those?
 
.

I'm not sticking up for him as he is his own worst enemy and certainly do not agree with him but he did say until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.

This could be 1 day or 1 week but as soon as I heard it I knew how it would be reported. It's crazy enough to attack and discuss without the hyperbole

Wait what? It's not ok to not let Muslims in for any period of time. It's blatantly unconstitutional. You cannot possibly be defending this.
 
What? All are easier. Hence the argument. Which are you ready to cut off? Tourists? Business people? Loved ones? Do you think your favored politicians are OK with cutting off those?

i don't have the time or energy to chase my tail.
 
C

Wow. I have never said deny anyone other than the "vetting" process is a joke and i can understand and even agree that we should be cautious and make sure we can make everyone feel more comfortable with it. Are you still happy with our vetting capabilities ?

So the vetting process should have caught that her address was non-existent, and then what? Is there some correlation between people with non-existent addresses and terrorism that I don't know about? Would be interested to see your numbers.

The fact that she might have been stopped for some reason completely unrelated to terrorism says nothing about our ability to vet terrorism and what realistic expectations on that are.

We are never going to be able to thoroughly vet every single person who comes into the country. That is not realistic, at all. We have to accept that there is going to be some risk that we are letting terrorists in
 
Last edited:
It's unfortunate that you can not grasp the difference between a mass shooter acting alone and a terrorist funded building pipe bombs and following a radical ideology. Boston Marathon didn't use any guns. Pipe bombs are banned. I don't know why we can't tackle radical muslims without making this a islamaphobic issue.

I don't know why you all can't either.
 
It's unfortunate that you can not grasp the difference between a mass shooter acting alone and a terrorist funded building pipe bombs and following a radical ideology. Boston Marathon didn't use any guns. Pipe bombs are banned. I don't know why we can't tackle radical muslims without making this a islamaphobic issue.

They were funded? Oh yeah? By whom?

I haven't heard about the shooters in San Bernardino being funded.
 
i don't have the time or energy to chase my tail.

So you don't have the time or energy to back up your position? OK, start with explaining how the vetting for a fiance visa compares to refugees.
 
It's unfortunate that you can not grasp the difference between a mass shooter acting alone and a terrorist funded building pipe bombs and following a radical ideology. Boston Marathon didn't use any guns. Pipe bombs are banned. I don't know why we can't tackle radical muslims without making this a islamaphobic issue.

The inclusion of the word "Muslim" or "Islam" in describing these terrorists leads people to attribute these acts to all Muslims.

The terrorists in Boston did have and use guns.

Even though pipe bombs are illegal, the NRA (and therefore the GOP) still doesn't want you to be able to trace the explosives used.

One avenue of investigation is already closed off to forensic officials working the Boston Marathon bombing case due to efforts dating back decades by the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers.

... a crucial piece of evidence called a taggant that could be used to trace the gunpowder used in the bombs to a buyer at a point of sale is not available to investigators.

“If you had a good taggant this would be a good thing for this kind of crime. It could help identify the point of manufacturer, and chain of custody,” Bob Morhard, an explosives consultant and chief executive officer of Zukovich, Morhard & Wade, LLC., in Pennsylvania, who has traced explosives and detonators in use in the United States and Saudi Arabia, told msnbc.com. “The problem is nobody wants to know what the material is.”

Explosives manufacturers are required to place tracing elements known as identification taggants only in plastic explosives but not in gunpowder, thanks to lobbying efforts by the NRA and large gun manufacturing groups.

... In the past, the NRA has argued that taggants could affect the trajectory of bullets and would also be a de facto form of weapons registration....

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/how-the-gun-lobby-has-already-blocked-boston
 
Wait what? It's not ok to not let Muslims in for any period of time. It's blatantly unconstitutional. You cannot possibly be defending this.

As despicable as I would find it... I'm not sure that disallowing non-US citizens into the country based on their religion is unconstitutional considering the Constitution relates to only American citizens.
 
Serious question, why the fuck do we care so much about stopping Islamic terrorism?

Islamic terrorists kill how many people in the U.S. every year? Less than 100? Less than 50? Less than 20? Can't be more than that - terrorism can't be in the top 100 causes of death for Americans every year. Yet we spend an incredible amount of resources on stopping terrorism, and still people consider it a failure when one attack happens.

Could you imagine how many more American lives would be saved if we devoted all that money to something like policing the drug cartels, or gangs, or even....firearm regulation?

Yet we run around freaking out about Islamic terrorism like it's some major threat to the American public.

Anyone care to defend the alarmism?
 
As despicable as I would find it... I'm not sure that disallowing non-US citizens into the country based on their religion is unconstitutional considering the Constitution relates to only American citizens.

False, although it may not relate to people outside the borders. Still would violate international law and our many treaty obligations. And regardless, Trump said that his policy would apply to citizens as well.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure it's new, but my new favorite board conservative rhetorical maneuver is "Hey, this conservative said something crazy. I don't agree with it, but I'll argue like hell in favor of it."
 
Back
Top