Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Dec 9, 2015.
This could have been much, much worse.
the mother was added to the terror list.
That's ok, thanks to the GOP she can still purchase firearms.
don't forget to thank the ACLU.
Yeah, I very rarely disagree with the ACLU. But in this case I must.
because your feelings are in the way, anyone can be added to the list, good luck getting out of it.
that's because of the number of inaccuracies that the terror list contains. when we get that right then perhaps the bill will pass. until then, it's not being vetted accurately. anyone surprised?
Yea, that good old no-fly list. And we're supposed to believe Obama when he says, "We can vet all ME migrants!"
Yes, because denying people their Constitutional rights without due process is clearly the way to go.
So do you agree with your graphic ... or not?
I'm confused. It would seem that you're both bashing Obama for including innocent people on a No Fly list, while at the same time supporting the ban of Muslims from the ME, which would surely punish innocent people.
It looks to me like you're trying to occupy both sides of the issue. Perhaps you can clarify your stance.
everyone has an agenda....
It looks that way because you refuse to accept that people don't always fit into one side or another all the time. You are smarter than that I know but for some reason like to keep bringing up similar arguments for the sake of it. I'm all for locking down the import of anyone from the various M.E. countries for a while. Don't really care if their innocent or not. It's not about them, it's about us and protecting our borders and our people.
I must have set off a firestorm, my Apple Watch is blowing up with all these notifications.
Yes, there are some inaccuracies on the terror watchlist. But here you guys are celebrating that the San Bernadino shooter's mom was added to it. That doesn't really make much sense, pick a side. What's the point of it anyway if it can't be used as a precaution to prevent future terroristic acts? May as well abolish it all together according to some of you.
All of a sudden Republicans are concerned with inaccuracies. I'm sure the defeat of the bill had nothing to do with the NRA and the party that grabs their ankles for them. They were concerned about inaccuracies on the watchlist, right, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn....
How about freezing their social media accounts if they are on the no-fly list? What about freezing their assets as well? How about placing a boot on their car?
People should not be denied their Constitution rights without due process.
She should just be arrested and put in jail. The baby should be turned over to the state and raised to be a good American. She's just an infant.
Social media doesn't kill people. And killing people with a car isn't that easy.
Isn't that a major avenue for ISIS recruiting?
People who want major revisions to the 2nd Amendment would never tolerate the same limitations to their 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech.
He had photos of the school on his cellphone because he inspected the food service operation there. I've got cellphone pictures of my local library; a motorcycle dealership; and a rusty water tank at an abandoned rail siding. If I at some future point commit some crime at a nightclub or restaurant - that doesn't mean I was necessarily also planning on committing further crimes at the places on my cellphone.
Now, we don't know if Farouk planned to go on a shooting rampage at the high school; or at a shopping mall. We don't know - at this stage, perhaps ever - what his plans were. So saying something could have been worse is true. Anything could have been worse. Farouk and his wife ended up targeting the Regional Center because he had some sort of personal connection with the place. That, IMHO, seems the most significant fact in all of this.
I think you are trying to fit bits of pieces of information to fit some sort of narrative. One that fits in within whatever political and/or societal point you are trying to make.
So? How can one person kill people on social media.
Sounds like something you could only pull off at a parade, and you'd struggle to kill as many as that.
Obama signed indefinite detention w/o trial into law, WHO is he going to use that on? Christians? because he sure as hell is not appear to be using it on Muslims.
I suppose Farook also had photos of where he used to work.
Oh, that he might have digitally scrubbed.
Perhaps instead of debating bills, senators could bring weapons onto the floor of the chamber and decide ideological conflicts through force of arms. Perhaps courts could entertain the notion of trial by combat. Instead of elections, we might recruit snipers to make the ballot box a mere formality. Oh yes, the second amendment is so much more useful than the first!
Take a few hours to peruse all my posts and my stance will be perfectly clear.
Sure. It makes perfect sense in the fantasy world you've chosen to share.
Okay, back to reality.
Did you even read the article? The San Berdoo authorities are the ones saying they may have dodged an even greater massacre.