TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The new travel ban - effective March 16th.

karl271 · Guru

Sounds good to me. Still see a lot of hollering and yelling going on this a.m. on TV. Demonstrating for the sake of demonstrating???

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The gotta bitch about everything. Hell, if a picture shows up of him eating Cheerios, libs are likely to boycott General Mills.

FNW · Guru

I wonder why Iraq was taken off the list...

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Wait! He can't eat Cheerios! We need her!

And she's probably chewy.

Speaking of which, has she posted recently?

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

FNW wrote:
I wonder why Iraq was taken off the list...

Iraq cut a deal that included better vetting on their part.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Kudos to Trump for not backing down. They tried to squash him but he regroups and comes back trying to do what he was elected to do. Which was to put a lid on ILLEGAL immigration.

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

Illegal immigration, yes. However, people with valid passports are still being detained and turned back. Even those from friendly countries like Canada and Australia. This isn't about work visas. It is now attacking tourists.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

90 days. Select countries. Get a grip.

Tinydancer · Guru

Attacking tourist? Are we cutting their heads off or something? Trying to keep the bad guys out means that some others may have a more difficult time getting in. It shouldn't be an easy thing anyways in my opinion.

FNW · Guru

I have no problem with tight security.

Thanks, IKWTDS. That makes sense then (about Iraq).

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
Illegal immigration, yes. However, people with valid passports are still being detained and turned back. Even those from friendly countries like Canada and Australia. This isn't about work visas. It is now attacking tourists.

Then the border patrol are interpreting the rules wrongly.

However, I have no issue when the Canadians were turned away when they said they were coming here to protest. Sorry - you don't have the right to come here for that.

Cheerios4606 · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Wait! He can't eat Cheerios! We need her!

And she's probably chewy.

Speaking of which, has she posted recently?

Yep I still be here! And I am VERY delicious!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Cheerios4606 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Wait! He can't eat Cheerios! We need her!

And she's probably chewy.

Speaking of which, has she posted recently?
Yep I still be here! And I am VERY delicious!

Hehe....

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

Lawyerlady wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
Illegal immigration, yes. However, people with valid passports are still being detained and turned back. Even those from friendly countries like Canada and Australia. This isn't about work visas. It is now attacking tourists.
Then the border patrol are interpreting the rules wrongly.

However, I have no issue when the Canadians were turned away when they said they were coming here to protest. Sorry - you don't have the right to come here for that.

Yeah - coming in with the intent to break the law is stupid. But many of those turned away were not that. And, ironically, the majority of them were not white.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

If America is just so horrible, why is everyone trying to get into it?

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

to protest and steal all the menial jobs.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Then the border patrol are interpreting the rules wrongly.
- Lawyerlady

______________________________

Agreed. And that was the problem with the original EO. It wasn't that the EO said "detain and refuse everyone". It's that Border Security agents were misinterpreting, either intentionally or unintentionally, who should and should not be allowed to pass.

I agree that Trump is the big man in charge, and "the buck stops" there. But - (big pause, yuuuge) - He can't be everywhere and everywhen. Subordinates are required and they screw up sometimes. It would be different if it was by his order (like things that Hillary is guilty of, which were actually by her order).

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

lilyofcourse wrote:
If America is just so horrible, why is everyone trying to get into it?

Oh. And because America bombed the hell out of their countries and they have nowhere to live. Like in Syria.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Don't care.

If someone wants to come to America to live, jump through the appropriate hoops.

And once here, assimilate.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Having hissy fits over a 90 ban is idiotic.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
If America is just so horrible, why is everyone trying to get into it?

Oh. And because America bombed the hell out of their countries and they have nowhere to live. Like in Syria.

Which we should not have been doing. Some of our bombing actually helped ISIS. And people wonder why people wonder about Obama.

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

lilyofcourse wrote:
Don't care.

If someone wants to come to America to live, jump through the appropriate hoops.

And once here, assimilate.

So basically, you're telling me that bombing Syria to bits and leaving the entire country's population war-refugees who come to America is recruitment?

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

Lawyerlady wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
If America is just so horrible, why is everyone trying to get into it?

Oh. And because America bombed the hell out of their countries and they have nowhere to live. Like in Syria.
Which we should not have been doing. Some of our bombing actually helped ISIS. And people wonder why people wonder about Obama.

Who cares which did it. The point is, people are trying to get into the US because it is (was) a 'safe place' to go after that very country destroyed their homes by bombing the living crap out of it.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
If America is just so horrible, why is everyone trying to get into it?

Oh. And because America bombed the hell out of their countries and they have nowhere to live. Like in Syria.
Which we should not have been doing. Some of our bombing actually helped ISIS. And people wonder why people wonder about Obama.
Who cares which did it. The point is, people are trying to get into the US because it is (was) a 'safe place' to go after that very country destroyed their homes by bombing the living crap out of it.

I do. Obama's horrible foreign policies and refusal to face the threats of terrorism head-on have created a mess and now Trump has to clean it up. And quite frankly, I feel people need to defend their homeland - not abandon it. If war started here, I wouldn't be running - I'd be fighting.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Don't care.

If someone wants to come to America to live, jump through the appropriate hoops.

And once here, assimilate.

So basically, you're telling me that bombing Syria to bits and leaving the entire country's population war-refugees who come to America is recruitment?

Syria has been a mess for a long time - you don't get to blame that all on the U.S.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Doesn't mean they get to come here and screw America up.

Want to live here? Enter legally and asimilate.

Period.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

The first state to bring suit against the new ban?

HAWAII

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

Good for them... confuse

Ohfour · Hooker

I just read the complaint. They have no standing. It's posturing by the liberals. They have to do something to seem relevant..

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I don't see what the big deal is, really.

90 days is not that big of an inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

For SOME people, it may well be.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
For SOME people, it may well be.

flan

Yeah, illegals...

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

lilyofcourse wrote:
Doesn't mean they get to come here and screw America up.

Want to live here? Enter legally and asimilate.

Period.

But America gets to screw up their country. To the point where cities are ground into dust.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Doesn't mean they get to come here and screw America up.

Want to live here? Enter legally and asimilate.

Period.

But America gets to screw up their country. To the point where cities are ground into dust.

What?????

Tinydancer · Guru

So we should not try to help them by stopping ISIS? Do you think we can wish them away? We need to do strategic bombing. Not the blanket bombing that O approved. Their country would be war torn and reduced to rubble whether we are there or not but you go right ahead and blame the US instead of the barbaric Islamic jihadist who brought this on their own people.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Guess so.

Still don't see what that has to do with protecting American citizens.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Doesn't mean they get to come here and screw America up.

Want to live here? Enter legally and asimilate.

Period.

But America gets to screw up their country. To the point where cities are ground into dust.

This kind of attitude is exactly why the U.S. should just pull out of every damn nation in the world and let them kill each other off and if the winning side is a horrible, nasty, Jihadist nation of terror, then I guess that's their problem. Too bad, so sad.

Regardless, nobody has the RIGHT to come here. And that includes Canadians.

burns07 · Guru

you need to snap out of it tig--the reasons " cities, homes, offices, etc. " have been bombed is that the conflict in Syria is, for a large part, an urban conflict--purposefully fought from the point of blending in with the innocents for deception and security--pinpoint strikes with no collateral victims or damage are difficult in the extreme to effectively carry out

if we were citizens there and without the ability or means to end the murder/rape/torture being inflicted on us by inhuman aggressors then would be grateful others would attempt to take out the bad guys--true, we might die in the fighting/attacks, but at least it would not be at the hands of a bunch of sickos bent on our torture/destruction

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

burns07 wrote:

you need to snap out of it tig--the reasons " cities, homes, offices, etc. " have been bombed is that the conflict in Syria is, for a large part, an urban conflict--purposefully fought from the point of blending in with the innocents for deception and security--pinpoint strikes with no collateral victims or damage are difficult in the extreme to effectively carry out

if we were citizens there and without the ability or means to end the murder/rape/torture being inflicted on us by inhuman aggressors then would be grateful others would attempt to take out the bad guys--true, we might die in the fighting/attacks, but at least it would not be at the hands of a bunch of sickos bent on our torture/destruction

Technically, I'm not looking at why it was done or the tactical processes in the determination. I'm suggesting that because it WAS done, an approach without hostility regarding the people who need a home. A country (ANY country) cannot destroy the homes of hundreds of thousands of people and then complain when they come to a new country. Should they be screened? Yes. Should they be entering the country illegally? No. Should they be doing/not doing all sorts of things that are/aren't being done? Yes/No. I'm not disputing any of those things. I'm suggesting that blanket approaches to immigration need to be viewed a little more critically from the perspective of human rights and human compassion.

I get that my perspective is the minority, and that is fine. But I would like to see a moderate and well thought out approach rather than repeated attempts to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

burns07 · Guru

you seem to be saying that the blame for the conflict in syria(and the subsequent death/damage/destruction)rests with us--that's just bullspit--dead wrong--regardless WHAT conflicts are going on in the world it remains our right(and ours alone)to decide immigration policy here in the US--has always been the case and will ever remain the same

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

burns07 wrote:

you seem to be saying that the blame for the conflict in syria(and the subsequent death/damage/destruction)rests with us--that's just bullspit--dead wrong--regardless WHAT conflicts are going on in the world it remains our right(and ours alone)to decide immigration policy here in the US--has always been the case and will ever remain the same

I said ANY country. And then I addressed the immigration policy of your country. And pretty much agreed, other than the attempts to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Tignanello wrote:
burns07 wrote:

you need to snap out of it tig--the reasons " cities, homes, offices, etc. " have been bombed is that the conflict in Syria is, for a large part, an urban conflict--purposefully fought from the point of blending in with the innocents for deception and security--pinpoint strikes with no collateral victims or damage are difficult in the extreme to effectively carry out

if we were citizens there and without the ability or means to end the murder/rape/torture being inflicted on us by inhuman aggressors then would be grateful others would attempt to take out the bad guys--true, we might die in the fighting/attacks, but at least it would not be at the hands of a bunch of sickos bent on our torture/destruction

Technically, I'm not looking at why it was done or the tactical processes in the determination. I'm suggesting that because it WAS done, an approach without hostility regarding the people who need a home. A country (ANY country) cannot destroy the homes of hundreds of thousands of people and then complain when they come to a new country. Should they be screened? Yes. Should they be entering the country illegally? No. Should they be doing/not doing all sorts of things that are/aren't being done? Yes/No. I'm not disputing any of those things. I'm suggesting that blanket approaches to immigration need to be viewed a little more critically from the perspective of human rights and human compassion.
I get that my perspective is the minority, and that is fine. But I would like to see a moderate and well thought out approach rather than repeated attempts to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

How do you "screen" people without organized governments? Do you think that you just pay a fee and get an Act 45 clearance or something? Tell me EXACTLY the policy and procedure to use to screen them.

As for the "oh America is hostile" bullschit. That is just bullschit. Period. America spends it's own money to try to help. What the hell as any Middle Eastern Country done for anyone ? Sheesh. Really getting sick of the America Dogpile. I hope that Trump pulls us out of the UN and pulls our MONEY out of all these corrupt and ridiculous leech organizations.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

OMG, Tig...my mother used to throw spaghetti at the wall!

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

That's funny i thought you hated TG? And here you are!

Tignanello · My dog name is, Sasha!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
burns07 wrote:

you need to snap out of it tig--the reasons " cities, homes, offices, etc. " have been bombed is that the conflict in Syria is, for a large part, an urban conflict--purposefully fought from the point of blending in with the innocents for deception and security--pinpoint strikes with no collateral victims or damage are difficult in the extreme to effectively carry out

if we were citizens there and without the ability or means to end the murder/rape/torture being inflicted on us by inhuman aggressors then would be grateful others would attempt to take out the bad guys--true, we might die in the fighting/attacks, but at least it would not be at the hands of a bunch of sickos bent on our torture/destruction

Technically, I'm not looking at why it was done or the tactical processes in the determination. I'm suggesting that because it WAS done, an approach without hostility regarding the people who need a home. A country (ANY country) cannot destroy the homes of hundreds of thousands of people and then complain when they come to a new country. Should they be screened? Yes. Should they be entering the country illegally? No. Should they be doing/not doing all sorts of things that are/aren't being done? Yes/No. I'm not disputing any of those things. I'm suggesting that blanket approaches to immigration need to be viewed a little more critically from the perspective of human rights and human compassion.
I get that my perspective is the minority, and that is fine. But I would like to see a moderate and well thought out approach rather than repeated attempts to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
How do you "screen" people without organized governments? Do you think that you just pay a fee and get an Act 45 clearance or something? Tell me EXACTLY the policy and procedure to use to screen them.
As for the "oh America is hostile" bullschit. That is just bullschit. Period. America spends it's own money to try to help. What the hell as any Middle Eastern Country done for anyone ? Sheesh. Really getting sick of the America Dogpile. I hope that Trump pulls us out of the UN and pulls our MONEY out of all these corrupt and ridiculous leech organizations.

Well, I'm going to assume that this is not in response to my comment, as I didn't say anything about the US being hostile. YOU, on the other hand, seem quite hostile.

What do you mean, how do you screen people without organized governments? Of course you need an organized government.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
burns07 wrote:

you need to snap out of it tig--the reasons " cities, homes, offices, etc. " have been bombed is that the conflict in Syria is, for a large part, an urban conflict--purposefully fought from the point of blending in with the innocents for deception and security--pinpoint strikes with no collateral victims or damage are difficult in the extreme to effectively carry out

if we were citizens there and without the ability or means to end the murder/rape/torture being inflicted on us by inhuman aggressors then would be grateful others would attempt to take out the bad guys--true, we might die in the fighting/attacks, but at least it would not be at the hands of a bunch of sickos bent on our torture/destruction

Technically, I'm not looking at why it was done or the tactical processes in the determination. I'm suggesting that because it WAS done, an approach without hostility regarding the people who need a home. A country (ANY country) cannot destroy the homes of hundreds of thousands of people and then complain when they come to a new country. Should they be screened? Yes. Should they be entering the country illegally? No. Should they be doing/not doing all sorts of things that are/aren't being done? Yes/No. I'm not disputing any of those things. I'm suggesting that blanket approaches to immigration need to be viewed a little more critically from the perspective of human rights and human compassion.
I get that my perspective is the minority, and that is fine. But I would like to see a moderate and well thought out approach rather than repeated attempts to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
How do you "screen" people without organized governments? Do you think that you just pay a fee and get an Act 45 clearance or something? Tell me EXACTLY the policy and procedure to use to screen them.
As for the "oh America is hostile" bullschit. That is just bullschit. Period. America spends it's own money to try to help. What the hell as any Middle Eastern Country done for anyone ? Sheesh. Really getting sick of the America Dogpile. I hope that Trump pulls us out of the UN and pulls our MONEY out of all these corrupt and ridiculous leech organizations.
Well, I'm going to assume that this is not in response to my comment, as I didn't say anything about the US being hostile. YOU, on the other hand, seem quite hostile.
What do you mean, how do you screen people without organized governments? Of course you need an organized government.

And Syria doesn't have one. Neither do many others.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tignanello wrote:
burns07 wrote:

you seem to be saying that the blame for the conflict in syria(and the subsequent death/damage/destruction)rests with us--that's just bullspit--dead wrong--regardless WHAT conflicts are going on in the world it remains our right(and ours alone)to decide immigration policy here in the US--has always been the case and will ever remain the same

I said ANY country. And then I addressed the immigration policy of your country. And pretty much agreed, other than the attempts to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.

No, you didn't.

Tignanello wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Doesn't mean they get to come here and screw America up.

Want to live here? Enter legally and asimilate.

Period.

But America gets to screw up their country. To the point where cities are ground into dust.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

So saying America is screwing up their country isn't blaming the U.S. or calling it hostile?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

So, do we send $20 to the Syrian Bureau of Background checks and then get an FBI clearance and child abuse clearance on these mostly men?