House votes to block Syrian refugees

[toxicmedia]

That's what you guys say about illegals from Mexico, when most of that crime is illegal on illegal stuff.

I must say...I'm in favor of what Jerry Brown is talking about, and that is allowing the refugees, but vetting them as best we can, and watching them very closely.

I have no problem with refugees.

I have a big problem with tens of thousands of specifically ISLAMIC refugees that are not properly screened, just as I have a big problem with the fact that our traitorous prez refuses to catch, screen, deport or prosecute any of the tens of thousands of illegals coming across our southern border. The only people he is interested in "catching" appear to be the CHRISTIANS from the middle east, who do not pose any sort of threat to anybody, and who are actually being slaughtered as we speak by the very people we're waving across the borders.

In an exercise based purely on semantics, let me rephrase what you just said, to show the degree to which I agree.

I have no problem with refugees.

I have a big problem with 20,000 Islamic refugees from an ISIS hot bed that are not properly screened.

See...if you take out all the hysteria, the refugees will be screened, and that will minimize the risk.

But if you want to hate Muslims, Obama, Mexican illegals, and wallow in terrorized fear and hatred....go right ahead, I won't be joining you

no one asked you to join.

Not much of a reader are you.

Huh? You said you wouldn't be joining, I merely asked who invited you to?

I'm not sure what this political "discussion" web site looks like through your browser. But the obvious implication on my end is that posters will participate in discussions, except for that one category where it's one on one

 

[Alex.]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

It is not "either/or" The problem stems from an ineffective or faulty vetting process for refugees.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

It is not "either/or" The problem stems from an ineffective or faulty vetting process for refugees.

Why would a terrorist go through a 18-24 month vetting process rather than just sending some that are able to get a tourist or student visa just like the 9/11 hijackers did?

There really is no problem with the vetting process. Most of the concerns about possible terrorists are eliminated when selecting those applicants that are least likely to be terrorists. Like women, children, families, the elderly.

 

[Oldstyle]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

It is not "either/or" The problem stems from an ineffective or faulty vetting process for refugees.

Why would a terrorist go through a 18-24 month vetting process rather than just sending some that are able to get a tourist or student visa just like the 9/11 hijackers did?

There really is no problem with the vetting process. Most of the concerns about possible terrorists are eliminated when selecting those applicants that are least likely to be terrorists. Like women, children, families, the elderly.

Are you not paying attention, Hutch or do you simply wear blinders? ISIS isn't playing by the "rules"! They will use women, children even the handicapped as suicide bombers against the West.

How can you say there is no problem with the vetting process when the person who's in charge of vetting...the Director of the FBI...comes right out and says that there IS a problem vetting refugees from Syria?

 

[koshergrl]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

So..we should prevent tourists but encourage refugees?

It's like the left is taking stupid pills.

 

[toxicmedia]

ISIS is already here. You are worried about the new blood when the old blood are the ones with the plans to blow the shit out of things. You don't need time, you need to think straight.

ISIS may very well already be here. So does allowing more of them to enter the country make things better or worse? One of the reasons that France is so Fubared at the moment is that they have allowed huge numbers of Muslims into their country including Muslim extremists.

Use your head, Paint...if the Director of the FBI...an Obama appointee...comes out publicly to state that he's not confident that the FBI is going to be successful in vetting Syrian refugees...something that his boss obviously didn't want to hear...don't you think it's a serious problem? If it wasn't then he doesn't make that statement! He made it because he's covering his ass and he's covering his ass because he's worried something is going to happen!

We know something is going to happen, and ISIS is already here. You need to plan, not panic. ISIS is an idea, not a person.

ISIS is not an "idea", you naive fool...it's a GROUP of people who are dedicated to killing you! What part of that concept can't you grasp?

They aren't naive, they're traitors.

I really think they are naive, Kosher...it's the whole "if you're nice to people...then they'll be nice to you in return!" thing...which works great until you run into a bunch of sociopaths who view "nice" as a sign of weakness and weakness as something to be exploited! Barack Obama's problem is that he really thought he could reason with people like ISIS and that they'd be won over by his eloquence. It would be amusing to observe if it wasn't putting so many people at risk.

I find your post very interesting because it validates, in this one instance, one of the broad brush differences between self identified "conservatives" and self identified "liberals.

The one I've found to be most true is how liberals tend to be more comfortable with gray areas within complex relationships, whereas conservatives are better at identifying threats.

Which of course completely explains why the GOP is against Syrian refugees, and some of the Dems are.

Perhaps Dems should yield to the GOP, since they're better at this sort of thing

 

[jc456]

I have no problem with refugees.

I have a big problem with tens of thousands of specifically ISLAMIC refugees that are not properly screened, just as I have a big problem with the fact that our traitorous prez refuses to catch, screen, deport or prosecute any of the tens of thousands of illegals coming across our southern border. The only people he is interested in "catching" appear to be the CHRISTIANS from the middle east, who do not pose any sort of threat to anybody, and who are actually being slaughtered as we speak by the very people we're waving across the borders.

In an exercise based purely on semantics, let me rephrase what you just said, to show the degree to which I agree.

I have no problem with refugees.

I have a big problem with 20,000 Islamic refugees from an ISIS hot bed that are not properly screened.

See...if you take out all the hysteria, the refugees will be screened, and that will minimize the risk.

But if you want to hate Muslims, Obama, Mexican illegals, and wallow in terrorized fear and hatred....go right ahead, I won't be joining you

no one asked you to join.

Not much of a reader are you.

Huh? You said you wouldn't be joining, I merely asked who invited you to?

I'm not sure what this political "discussion" web site looks like through your browser. But the obvious implication on my end is that posters will participate in discussions, except for that one category where it's one on one

what do you wish to discuss one on one? Go for it, let's hear what you'd like to debate.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

It is not "either/or" The problem stems from an ineffective or faulty vetting process for refugees.

Why would a terrorist go through a 18-24 month vetting process rather than just sending some that are able to get a tourist or student visa just like the 9/11 hijackers did?

There really is no problem with the vetting process. Most of the concerns about possible terrorists are eliminated when selecting those applicants that are least likely to be terrorists. Like women, children, families, the elderly.

Are you not paying attention, Hutch or do you simply wear blinders? ISIS isn't playing by the "rules"! They will use women, children even the handicapped as suicide bombers against the West.

How can you say there is no problem with the vetting process when the person who's in charge of vetting...the Director of the FBI...comes right out and says that there IS a problem vetting refugees from Syria?

Paranoid nonsense. You do know that ISIS doesn't control Syria don't you? Nor do they control the refugees, many of whom have not been in Syria for some time.

 

[jc456]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

It is not "either/or" The problem stems from an ineffective or faulty vetting process for refugees.

Why would a terrorist go through a 18-24 month vetting process rather than just sending some that are able to get a tourist or student visa just like the 9/11 hijackers did?

There really is no problem with the vetting process. Most of the concerns about possible terrorists are eliminated when selecting those applicants that are least likely to be terrorists. Like women, children, families, the elderly.

Are you not paying attention, Hutch or do you simply wear blinders? ISIS isn't playing by the "rules"! They will use women, children even the handicapped as suicide bombers against the West.

How can you say there is no problem with the vetting process when the person who's in charge of vetting...the Director of the FBI...comes right out and says that there IS a problem vetting refugees from Syria?

Paranoid nonsense. You do know that ISIS doesn't control Syria don't you? Nor do they control the refugees, many of whom have not been in Syria for some time.

what does that have to do with the price of oil in china?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

So..we should prevent tourists but encourage refugees?

It's like the left is taking stupid pills.

You don't see a difference?

 

[koshergrl]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

It is not "either/or" The problem stems from an ineffective or faulty vetting process for refugees.

Why would a terrorist go through a 18-24 month vetting process rather than just sending some that are able to get a tourist or student visa just like the 9/11 hijackers did?

There really is no problem with the vetting process. Most of the concerns about possible terrorists are eliminated when selecting those applicants that are least likely to be terrorists. Like women, children, families, the elderly.

Because the vetting process is a joke, and they don't "go through" the vetting process. They just pose as refugees who aren't really vetted. That's the point. There is no vetting process. The whole "vetting process" thing is a lie. They are waving through illegals with the intent of flooding the us with terrorists and criminals, and they are turning back the ones who are the real thing.

 

[toxicmedia]

In an exercise based purely on semantics, let me rephrase what you just said, to show the degree to which I agree.

I have no problem with refugees.

I have a big problem with 20,000 Islamic refugees from an ISIS hot bed that are not properly screened.

See...if you take out all the hysteria, the refugees will be screened, and that will minimize the risk.

But if you want to hate Muslims, Obama, Mexican illegals, and wallow in terrorized fear and hatred....go right ahead, I won't be joining you

no one asked you to join.

Not much of a reader are you.

Huh? You said you wouldn't be joining, I merely asked who invited you to?

I'm not sure what this political "discussion" web site looks like through your browser. But the obvious implication on my end is that posters will participate in discussions, except for that one category where it's one on one

what do you wish to discuss one on one? Go for it, let's hear what you'd like to debate.

This thread is about ISIS refugees.

My position includes:

A. None of the 2000+ Syrian refugees that are here already have been accused of terrorism.
B. The last time we admitted 2000+ Syrian refugees, there were over 7000 that applied, and only 2000+ that were approved
C. The security threats have not been refugees. The terrorists on 911, and Boston, all had various kinds of travel visas.

What you may be unable to recognize, are dialog, and questions. This is where someone states facts, and then people discuss them.

There is all to much of people dumping off unoriginal Fox News or MSNBC talking points on this site

 

[jc456]

no one asked you to join.

Not much of a reader are you.

Huh? You said you wouldn't be joining, I merely asked who invited you to?

I'm not sure what this political "discussion" web site looks like through your browser. But the obvious implication on my end is that posters will participate in discussions, except for that one category where it's one on one

what do you wish to discuss one on one? Go for it, let's hear what you'd like to debate.

This thread is about ISIS refugees.

My position includes:

A. None of the 2000+ Syrian refugees that are here already have been accused of terrorism.
B. The last time we admitted 2000+ Syrian refugees, there were over 7000 that applied, and only 2000+ that were approved
C. The security threats have not been refugees. The terrorists on 911, and Boston, all had various kinds of travel visas.

What you may be unable to recognize, are dialog, and questions. This is where someone states facts, and then people discuss them.

There is all to much of people dumping off unoriginal Fox News or MSNBC talking points on this site

Well what is it the FBI director said, let's start simple?

 

[Alex.]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

It is not "either/or" The problem stems from an ineffective or faulty vetting process for refugees.

Why would a terrorist go through a 18-24 month vetting process rather than just sending some that are able to get a tourist or student visa just like the 9/11 hijackers did?

There really is no problem with the vetting process. Most of the concerns about possible terrorists are eliminated when selecting those applicants that are least likely to be terrorists. Like women, children, families, the elderly.

I am not a terrorist so I would not know the answer to that. What I do know is the OP is about how the House voted regarding Syrian refugees.

 

[koshergrl]

no one asked you to join.

Not much of a reader are you.

Huh? You said you wouldn't be joining, I merely asked who invited you to?

I'm not sure what this political "discussion" web site looks like through your browser. But the obvious implication on my end is that posters will participate in discussions, except for that one category where it's one on one

what do you wish to discuss one on one? Go for it, let's hear what you'd like to debate.

This thread is about ISIS refugees.

My position includes:

A. None of the 2000+ Syrian refugees that are here already have been accused of terrorism.
B. The last time we admitted 2000+ Syrian refugees, there were over 7000 that applied, and only 2000+ that were approved
C. The security threats have not been refugees. The terrorists on 911, and Boston, all had various kinds of travel visas.

What you may be unable to recognize, are dialog, and questions. This is where someone states facts, and then people discuss them.

There is all to much of people dumping off unoriginal Fox News or MSNBC talking points on this site

Totally irrelevant.

The security threats HAVE been refugees, or rather, posing as refugees. There have been many of them.

 

[Oldstyle]

Something to think about.
The Paris attackers had EU passports. They could have come right in as tourists at anytime.
IMO that is a far bigger concern then refugees who will be closely scrutinized.

It is not "either/or" The problem stems from an ineffective or faulty vetting process for refugees.

Why would a terrorist go through a 18-24 month vetting process rather than just sending some that are able to get a tourist or student visa just like the 9/11 hijackers did?

There really is no problem with the vetting process. Most of the concerns about possible terrorists are eliminated when selecting those applicants that are least likely to be terrorists. Like women, children, families, the elderly.

Are you not paying attention, Hutch or do you simply wear blinders? ISIS isn't playing by the "rules"! They will use women, children even the handicapped as suicide bombers against the West.

How can you say there is no problem with the vetting process when the person who's in charge of vetting...the Director of the FBI...comes right out and says that there IS a problem vetting refugees from Syria?

Paranoid nonsense. You do know that ISIS doesn't control Syria don't you? Nor do they control the refugees, many of whom have not been in Syria for some time.

When did I ever say that ISIS controls the refugees? The refugees are fleeing the Middle East BECAUSE of ISIS! The problem is that ISIS is using that refugee flight to introduce it's own terrorists into Europe and the US. That isn't paranoia...it's reality...which you ignore at your own peril.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm sorry but this is a dangerous time. We really do need to tighten security on our borders. Our southern border is totally porous...our northern border not much better. We allow in people on student visas and then don't keep track of them. Before this wasn't a huge deal but since 9/11 it's become more and more critical and we've quite frankly ignored the problem. Time to correct that before something bad happens that should have been prevented.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[toxicmedia]

Not much of a reader are you.

Huh? You said you wouldn't be joining, I merely asked who invited you to?

I'm not sure what this political "discussion" web site looks like through your browser. But the obvious implication on my end is that posters will participate in discussions, except for that one category where it's one on one

what do you wish to discuss one on one? Go for it, let's hear what you'd like to debate.

This thread is about ISIS refugees.

My position includes:

A. None of the 2000+ Syrian refugees that are here already have been accused of terrorism.
B. The last time we admitted 2000+ Syrian refugees, there were over 7000 that applied, and only 2000+ that were approved
C. The security threats have not been refugees. The terrorists on 911, and Boston, all had various kinds of travel visas.

What you may be unable to recognize, are dialog, and questions. This is where someone states facts, and then people discuss them.

There is all to much of people dumping off unoriginal Fox News or MSNBC talking points on this site

Well what is it the FBI director said, let's start simple?

Too complicated?

(Yawn)..........

I was hoping to hear some original thinking from you

 

[toxicmedia]

Not much of a reader are you.

Huh? You said you wouldn't be joining, I merely asked who invited you to?

I'm not sure what this political "discussion" web site looks like through your browser. But the obvious implication on my end is that posters will participate in discussions, except for that one category where it's one on one

what do you wish to discuss one on one? Go for it, let's hear what you'd like to debate.

This thread is about ISIS refugees.

My position includes:

A. None of the 2000+ Syrian refugees that are here already have been accused of terrorism.
B. The last time we admitted 2000+ Syrian refugees, there were over 7000 that applied, and only 2000+ that were approved
C. The security threats have not been refugees. The terrorists on 911, and Boston, all had various kinds of travel visas.

What you may be unable to recognize, are dialog, and questions. This is where someone states facts, and then people discuss them.

There is all to much of people dumping off unoriginal Fox News or MSNBC talking points on this site

Totally irrelevant.

The security threats HAVE been refugees, or rather, posing as refugees. There have been many of them.

No they haven't

None of the 2100 or so Syrian refugees gave been arrested for terrorism.

Read what I wrote again, because Fox News won't show it......The security threats have not been refugees. The terrorists on 911, and Boston, all had various kinds of travel visas.