* Obama BANNED Iraqi refugees for 6 months in 2011 ! Where was the leftist outrage ?

There you go with that lens through which you view every issue. Hack.

incredulous.gif
 
I mean, where do you begin? Trump's ban is tied to a religion for starters. Or that there's a refugee crisis in Syria. And the list goes on. Secondly, Obama's actions in the past do not mute the various criticisms of Trump's legislation that I have put forward today and yesterday.

You wanna bitch about liberals. I get it. But don't use your petty hate for liberals as a lens through which to judge the quality of Trump's leadership. That's what saddled you with a dumbass president.
Trump's ban is tied to religion because most of the acts of terrorism that have occurred here in the United States in recent memory have been perpetrated by members of a specific religion. It doesn't matter if their theology or methods are wrong or don't honestly reflect the beliefs of the majority of it's practitioners. What does matter is that currently there really isn't a way to truly determine who may be adherents to those ideologies or methods among refugees coming from these areas. If the US is serious about helping refugees escape the environments that are a danger to them more effort should be applied to dealing with these situations within their own lands rather than potentially allowing those issues onto our shores.

Obama's past actions don't mute criticisms about Trump, agreed. But they do illustrate that these issues have been an apparent concern at various times for various reasons in regards to these nations and the majority religion that many of them subscribe to. It shows that issues of national security have been acknowledged by both sides of the isle at various times and by various Presidents in regards to Muslim nations with prominent radicalized elements. It's an issue that hasn't been resolved by either Democrats or Republicans. It's still a concern for our national security and the safety of our citizens.

Compassion is a desirable quality but compassion doesn't stop a bullet, a bomb, a knife or a vehicle when the person behind them truly desires our pain, fear and deaths. If those that champion minimally contested immigration where the only ones that might ultimately bear the results of any violence by immigrants than maybe such high-minded compassionate ideals could be perpetually endured. However, this isn't the case and the concerns of the rest of the population that don't agree have equal weight and consideration whether you wish to give it to them or not. Democrats have had their turn with the issue during Obama's Presidency. His methods where not perfect nor completely successful. Now it's the Republican's turn and only time will tell whether Trump's methods ultimately work better whether you agree with them or not.

Is there no option for national self-interest in your philosophy? Do you simply disagree with his methods, or do you ultimately disagree with the man himself and his actions and policies are objectionable because they come from him?
 
The US State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18...g-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

The progressive scum are once again showing their double standard and false outrage. Our khazar run media is trying to destroy and divide this country. The fact most of these protesting morons didn't even know Obama banned Iraqi refugees for months in 2011 is evident they are sheep.
Answer: Democrats are partisan sheeps, just like you.
 

And here it is. The great retreat to memes.


You're suggesting that somehow because Obama banned Iraq immigrants in the past, that the various criticisms of Trump's ban that I have put forward are null and void? How does that even follow? My criticisms have all been specific to Trump's legislation and the context of that legislation.


You're going on about this line of hypocrisy that quite frankly is irrelevant regardless if it is true or not, in my case or more broadly. We could talk about the specifics of Obama's legislation and find benefits and flaws, even some that share premises with the current discussion.


All of which is to say, you're thinking about things from this incredibly shallow us-vs-them perspective, and It's fucking obvious.

Your name is the sausage king. So I'm not necessarily surprised.
 
I said it before: Trump can't do a lot of the stuff he says and, because he says it, he'll get opposition to it. Hillary doesn't say shit and it will all happen, even the illegal stuff, and it nobody would say a peep.
 
Carter did something similar with Iran back in the day, I think it was a freeze on visas or something, so it's not entirely unprecedented.
 
Trump's ban is tied to religion because most of the acts of terrorism that have occurred here in the United States in recent memory have been perpetrated by members of a specific religion. It doesn't matter if their theology or methods are wrong or don't honestly reflect the beliefs of the majority of it's practitioners. What does matter is that currently there really isn't a way to truly determine who may be adherents to those ideologies or methods among refugees coming from these areas. If the US is serious about helping refugees escape the environments that are a danger to them more effort should be applied to dealing with these situations within their own lands rather than potentially allowing those issues onto our shores.

Obama's past actions don't mute criticisms about Trump, agreed. But they do illustrate that these issues have been an apparent concern at various times for various reasons in regards to these nations and the majority religion that many of them subscribe to. It shows that issues of national security have been acknowledged by both sides of the isle at various times and by various Presidents in regards to Muslim nations with prominent radicalized elements. It's an issue that hasn't been resolved by either Democrats or Republicans. It's still a concern for our national security and the safety of our citizens.

Compassion is a desirable quality but compassion doesn't stop a bullet, a bomb, a knife or a vehicle when the person behind them truly desires our pain, fear and deaths. If those that champion minimally contested immigration where the only ones that might ultimately bear the results of any violence by immigrants than maybe such high-minded compassionate ideals could be perpetually endured. However, this isn't the case and the concerns of the rest of the population that don't agree have equal weight and consideration whether you wish to give it to them or not. Democrats have had their turn with the issue during Obama's Presidency. His methods where not perfect nor completely successful. Now it's the Republican's turn and only time will tell whether Trump's methods ultimately work better whether you agree with them or not.

Is there no option for national self-interest in your philosophy? Do you simply disagree with his methods, or do you ultimately disagree with the man himself and his actions and policies are objectionable because they come from him?

I agree. My issue is that Trump is doing a lot of unnecessary damage on multiple fronts in the process of trying to do right by the American people.

He needs to be more surgical and less sweeping. It would serve everyone's interests here.


But yes, you make credible points.
 
And here it is. The great retreat to memes.


You're suggesting that somehow because Obama banned Iraq immigrants in the past, that the various criticisms of Trump's ban that I have put forward are null and void? How does that even follow? My criticisms have all been specific to Trump's legislation and the context of that legislation.


You're going on about this line of hypocrisy that quite frankly is irrelevant regardless if it is true or not, in my case or more broadly. We could talk about the specifics of Obama's legislation and find benefits and flaws, even some that share premises with the current discussion.


All of which is to say, you're thinking about things from this incredibly shallow us-vs-them perspective, and It's fucking obvious.

Your name is the sausage king. So I'm not necessarily surprised.
It fundamentally is an US vs THEM issue. Us being the United States and them being non-nationals from dangerous nations with violent radicalized elements that have perpetrated acts of violence within our borders and to our citizens abroad. While we may be a member of the United Nations, we are a sovereign nation first and our primary responsibilities and concerns should always be with our nation first.

If we can tighten up our screening processes, our current issues with illegal immigrants already within our borders, and our efforts toward integration of our current crop of immigrants then there really isn't a reason we can't be that beacon of hope Lady Liberty symbolizes. But, we aren't there yet and ignoring the problem in the name of expedient compassion isn't a solution either.
 
I agree. My issue is that Trump is doing a lot of unnecessary damage on multiple fronts in the process of trying to do right by the American people.

He needs to be more surgical and less sweeping. It would serve everyone's interests here.


But yes, you make credible points.
I agree that Trump has absolutely no subtlety or apparent restraint but maybe, just maybe that's what we currently need to truly get action started on fixing these issues. Oh, I know it'll cause problems with our international neighbors and how they view and deal with us but this an internal national matter and they ultimately have no say on how we conduct policy. We have entered a period of immigration austerity, social austerity and international political austerity.
 
I agree that Trump has absolutely no subtlety or apparent restraint but maybe, just maybe that's what we currently need to truly get action started on fixing these issues. Oh, I know it'll cause problems with our international neighbors and how they view and deal with us but this an internal national matter and they ultimately have no say on how we conduct policy. We have entered a period of immigration austerity, social austerity and international political austerity.

It always comes down to this with me and Trump. I respectfully think he's approach is unnecessary.
 
The US State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18...g-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

The progressive scum are once again showing their double standard and false outrage. Our khazar run media is trying to destroy and divide this country. The fact most of these protesting morons didn't even know Obama banned Iraqi refugees for months in 2011 is evident they are sheep.
By the way, just to show again why the double standard argument almost always fails...

Not processing additional requests is not the same thing as a total outright Visa ban
. You should be punched in the face for even comparing the two. Please stop using the double standard argument. It just leads to paranoia and whining. And in the end you just look like an idiot.
 
By the way, just to show again why the double standard argument almost always fails...

Not processing additional requests is not the same thing as a total outright Visa ban
. You should be punched in the face for even comparing the two. Please stop using the double standard argument. It just leads to paranoia and whining. And in the end you just look like an idiot.

lol

the sausage king man, that guy
 
Literally Hitler...
Black Hitler?
Mulatto Hitler?

-
There is a difference between a ban and not processing requests.

It goes both ways: where are all the rightwingers who keep saying Obama is a crypto-Muslim who hates the West and supports Islamic agendas.

Since we are on the question of Iraqi refugees, I have mentioned this a zillion times before: Bush gets shit on for his invasion and Iraqi civilian deaths but during the Clinton adminstration, over half a million Iraqi babies died as a result of sanctions and Madelline Albright said it was worth it but the liberal elite keeps quiet about it and even more disgusting is how Albright was part of the Hillary campaign.
 
The US State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18...g-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

The progressive scum are once again showing their double standard and false outrage. Our khazar run media is trying to destroy and divide this country. The fact most of these protesting morons didn't even know Obama banned Iraqi refugees for months in 2011 is evident they are sheep.

Wow he actually did this?
 
It's a bit amusing that TS is using this as an attempt to paint liberals as hypocrites while ignoring that it makes him a hypocrite for cheering trumps ban but not Obama's ban (even though the two are apples to oranges).

.
 
It was for a specific amount of time for a specific country for a specific reason. We're not comparing apples to apples here. Double standard for two different things? Duh!
 
Sausage queen needs a standing 8
 
I mean, where do you begin? Trump's ban is tied to a religion for starters. Or that there's a refugee crisis in Syria. And the list goes on. Secondly, Obama's actions in the past do not mute the various criticisms of Trump's legislation that I have put forward today and yesterday.

You wanna bitch about liberals. I get it. But don't use your petty hate for liberals as a lens through which to judge the quality of Trump's leadership. That's what saddled you with a dumbass president.

In other words, because one's a D and one's an R?
 
Back
Top