So the FBI (the premier investigative agency in the world) investigated the Orlando shooter twice, and concluded that he wasn't a threat.

Yet the same federal government is telling us to relax because they are screening all the Muslim refugees who are entering the US.

Imagine my relief.

So the FBI (the premier investigative agency in the world) investigated the Orlando shooter twice, and concluded that he wasn't a threat.

Yet the same federal government is telling us to relax because they are screening all the Muslim refugees who are entering the US.

Imagine my relief.

Here's my hunch ... The FBI director, who I believe is an honorable man , but holds the goods on Hillary, will be forced to resign ....and that will be a shame
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought that Homeland Security does the vetting. either way, I understand the no confidence thing, all the more reason to support the second amendment and protect yourself because if you think our government is going to protect you from evil, you are not paying attention.

I thought that Homeland Security does the vetting. .

I guess that's my point. If the FBI can't adequately screen an American citizen, when they have access to all kinds of data...how the hell is another (less capable) agency going to vet someone from a mountain village that has nothing resembling a public records department? How, exactly, do you vet someone from a village that has no computers, no id cards, no social security numbers, no phones, no cameras, no filing cabinets? Do we only consider refugees from the cities?

Apples and oranges. Your question is like asking why a local pizza delivery guy should be trusted to give you a cab ride in NYC.

Spence, what is your solution?

Spence, what is your solution?
To which issue?

Vetting.

You're assuming there's a problem in need of a solution. The existing process seems to be sufficient from what I've read and the number of immigrants involved isn't that big.

Trumps running around telling people that terrorists are going to flood in which really isn't true.

This is a situation Jeff,where just one can be too many. The possibility of many would have consequences that may have you taking more karate classes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a situation Jeff,where just one can be too many.
By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

Why everyone?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, why everyone and why not for a period of time until a better system is
devised to use every method possible to make a safer program?

Ha, I would also like to hear your drivel about just how that makes terrorists the victors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We should not accept any citizen from a country that supports terrorism as one of the rules for refusal.
What is wrong with that?
Just plain common sense.

Here's a novel idea. Let's keep them over there and we stay over here.

Holy sheet... I just solved it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

How do the terrorist's win, and why should we let people in that come from countries that support terrorism?

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

Not closing the border spence....even if a wall was built they just have to go through processing at the legal entrance....U should B complaining to Canada not letting Americans into their country with a past DUI....:)

IMO any refugee entering this country should be required sign a legal document during the vetting process giving up their rights to privacy until they become a U.S. citizen.

Not closing the border spence....even if a wall was built they just have to go through processing at the legal entrance....U should B complaining to Canada not letting Americans into their country with a past DUI....:)
US does the same thing, we're just a little less strict.

How do the terrorist's win, and why should we let people in that come from countries that support terrorism?
If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

So, is that more of a "win" than committing more mass murders on our soil?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, is that more of a "win" than committing more mass murders on our soil?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil. The experts seem to agree the bigger threat is self radicalization of people already here many who are citizens and can walk into gun stores and legally buy assault weapons.

Taking irrational action at the border to discriminate against Islam is not only going to be ineffective it's going drive self radicalization.

Newsflash, the worst mass shooting in US history appears to be a lover scorned.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/orlando-shooter-gay-lover-omar-mateen-224644

So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil. The experts seem to agree the bigger threat is self radicalization of people already here many who are citizens and can walk into gun stores and legally buy assault weapons.

Taking irrational action at the border to discriminate against Islam is not only going to be ineffective it's going drive self radicalization.

Newsflash, the worst mass shooting in US history appears to be a lover scorned.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/orlando-shooter-gay-lover-omar-mateen-224644

But we do have other countries that are having more attacks and that should be a lesson to us . What exactly is wrong with slowing the process down? When our parents immigrated here they needed sponsors and jobs . It was very strict . What was wrong with that system ? What purpose does it serve to have unlimited immigration? Do you not see the financial and social burden it creates ?
Oh scorned lover.. Lmao . Is that the new "work place violence "?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But we do have other countries that are having more attacks and that should be a lesson to us . What exactly is wrong with slowing the process down? When our parents immigrated here they needed sponsors and jobs . It was very strict . What was wrong with that system ? What purpose does it serve to have unlimited immigration? Do you not see the financial and social burden it creates ?
Oh scorned lover.. Lmao . Is that the new "work place violence "?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The attacks in France and Belgium were by EU citizens.

The process for refugees to come to the US is not the same as the EU either. It's much harder, takes longer and I don't believe refugees even have any say where they are sent. They are fingerprinted and have their retinas scanned.

Sure there's always a possibility and we should be vigilant, but trying to sneak a terrorist into the US as a refugee is probably the most difficult path to take.

The attacks in France and Belgium were by EU citizens.

The process for refugees to come to the US is not the same as the EU either. It's much harder, takes longer and I don't believe refugees even have any say where they are sent. They are fingerprinted and have their retinas scanned.

Sure there's always a possibility and we should be vigilant, but trying to sneak a terrorist into the US as a refugee is probably the most difficult path to take.

And my other questions ?
Btw who is " radicalizing " these US citizens?
If we let our fear that radicalized Muslim legal immigrants could be the result of stricter immigration controls , then the terrorist win. No ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

If it were not for the terrorists, we would not be influenced into taking the irrational position of accepting hundreds of thousands or more immigrants from countries that breed terrorism. So, yeah, terrorists are and have been influencing us to compromise our value of placing the security of our citizens above the "influence" of the terrorists who wish to destroy us.

And they have to be laughing at our un-American stupidity of placing ourselves in the demographic danger of expanding the population here of those who breed like rabbits (that's not racist--rabbits are not a relevant racial, or gender, or national, or ethnic, group) while, at the same time, we do not breed at replacement level (when discounting the irrational, un-American, acceptance of millions of illegal immigrants.)

Your idea of American "values" seems to contain a high degree of self flagellation . . . even of a latent suicidal tendency. That must be some new Progressive, delusional, LSD like substance politically injected into the cultural bloodstream of America.

And the terrorists must be bending over with spasms of glee that we see more danger in the Muslims who are already here than in the Muslims yet to come. Somehow, some of us seem to think that those to come (if they are not already "radicalized") won't become radicalized as easily as those who are here now. And somehow those who think that way miss the obvious fact that once immigrants get here, they will become part of the ones who become citizens and are already here. That the number who who are "already here" will have grown, creating the potential of even more "radicalized" Muslims.

If it were not for the terrorists, we would not be influenced into taking the irrational position of accepting hundreds of thousands or more immigrants from countries that breed terrorism.
The immigrants in question are largely a product of violence from Assad, not ISIS or al Qaeda.

The immigrants in question are largely a product of violence from Assad, not ISIS or al Qaeda.

The "immigrants in question", more importantly than merely being immigrants, are Muslim. The "product of violence from Assad" was "influenced" by Muslim terrorists. Muslim terrorists, regardless of nominal affiliation or lack thereof, are "influencing" all of the Middle East, Most of Europe, the US, and lots of other places. Places which are influenced to crack down on, deport, or not allow, immigrants have less of a problem and because of their harshness, are thusly, minimally, influenced.

And my other questions ?
Btw who is " radicalizing " these US citizens?
If we let our fear that radicalized Muslim legal immigrants could be the result of stricter immigration controls , then the terrorist win. No ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, Spence is so brainwashed by the administration and liberal media talking points he can't see the Catch 22 contradiction.

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

It would be an irrational decision to allow immigrants from countries that support terrorism the priviledge (sp ?) to enter our country.

Has the supposedly lengthy vetting process been reduced to three months for the "surge" of refugees that Obama wants to let in?

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/07/fox-host-claims-that-america-has-helped-enough/209814

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

"If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values"= utter nonsense:hihi:

So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil. The experts seem to agree the bigger threat is self radicalization of people already here many who are citizens and can walk into gun stores and legally buy assault weapons.

You don't pay attention, do you? I didn't mention shootings, yet you based your response on that. This thread is about immigration, not buying guns. Please try to come up with a response that fits the topic of the thread. You must have conveniently forgot about the marathon bombings and 9/11.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, is that more of a "win" than committing more mass murders on our soil?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Circle back around and think about why the mass murders happened in the first place.

What exactly is wrong with slowing the process down?
The process is already pretty slow.

When our parents immigrated here they needed sponsors and jobs . It was very strict . What was wrong with that system ?
A lot has changed since then and the system is much more strict today. Have you seen the process?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

What purpose does it serve to have unlimited immigration?
We do not have nor has anyone I'm aware of called for unlimited immigration.

Do you not see the financial and social burden it creates ?
Tell that to the last 200 years of immigrants that created the most powerful country in modern history.

Oh scorned lover.. Lmao . Is that the new "work place violence "?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's a dynamic that would have significant implications on his real motive.

Circle back around and think about why the mass murders happened in the first place.

Stop it. You're making yourself look even more foolish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The process is already pretty slow.


A lot has changed since then and the system is much more strict today. Have you seen the process?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states


We do not have nor has anyone I'm aware of called for unlimited immigration.


Tell that to the last 200 years of immigrants that created the most powerful country in modern history.


It's a dynamic that would have significant implications on his real motive.

What Fishbones said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be an irrational decision to allow immigrants from countries that support terrorism the priviledge (sp ?) to enter our country.
Why?

Stop it. You're making yourself look even more foolish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, I didn't mean to have asked you to think.

Yeah, Spence is so brainwashed by the administration and liberal media talking points he can't see the Catch 22 contradiction.
You should evaluate this remark in context of all domestic mass shootings and terror events.

Why?

Common sense. Shouldn't have to spell out the dangers of countries who
support the terrorism that wants to do us in.

You should evaluate this remark in context of all domestic mass shootings and terror events.

OK. I evaluated my remark in the context of your words in this thread about vetting refugees: "If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win." And: "Taking irrational action at the border to discriminate against Islam is not only going to be ineffective it's going drive self radicalization." There's a flip side to both of those propositions that you choose not to recognize, but you slavishly stick only to the administration talking points.

After evaluating my remark within its proper context, my remark stands.

Sorry, I didn't mean to have asked you to think.

Actually, you didn't ask. You just continue to say things to detract from the fact that you can't support your argument here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Common sense. Shouldn't have to spell out the dangers of countries who
support the terrorism that wants to do us in.

The biggest supporter of terrorism is the opponent who fuels the fire of jihad. Every bomb we drop is just fertilizer for more hate of the west. So in a way, we are the biggest funders of terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Vetting refugees - Look at how Europe turned itself into a third world country. I say we stay the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of it and mind our own business. They need refuge, let them go to Oman or UAE, Dubai etc. Those mf'ers have bank! Let them help themselves and we'll watch from a safe distance.

The Flowers By Irene guys are robots. They get told go they go. They get told stop they stop. The probably stopped on the kid in Orlando because they were giving him boo boo feelings on the inside.

So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil. The experts seem to agree the bigger threat is self radicalization of people already here many who are citizens and can walk into gun stores and legally buy assault weapons.

Taking irrational action at the border to discriminate against Islam is not only going to be ineffective it's going drive self radicalization.

Newsflash, the worst mass shooting in US history appears to be a lover scorned.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/orlando-shooter-gay-lover-omar-mateen-224644

"So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil"

Spence, I'll do you one better...I'm not aware of a Muslim immigrant who has gotten a parking ticket. But I don't know why that matters. So we should wait until it happens, and THEN devise a policy to prevent it?

My point was this...it's much easier for the FBI to investigate an American citizen, than it is for anyone, in any agency, to investigate someone from a mountaintop village which has no electricity or computers. So forgive me if I'm not relieved when Obama says "don't worry, we are vetting these people".

The biggest supporter of terrorism is the opponent who fuels the fire of jihad. Every bomb we drop is just fertilizer for more hate of the west. So in a way, we are the biggest funders of terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So we should leave them alone. That's brilliant.

My point was this...it's much easier for the FBI to investigate an American citizen, than it is for anyone, in any agency, to investigate someone from a mountaintop village which has no electricity or computers. So forgive me if I'm not relieved when Obama says "don't worry, we are vetting these people".
Totally different processes.

Totally different processes.

As I said, I agree. One process (FBI vetting citizens) is a lot easier. And they still failed miserably in teh case of the Orlando guy.

You said that if we implement bad policies, terrorists win. How does the removal of second amendment rights fit into that argument?

As I said, I agree. One process (FBI vetting citizens) is a lot easier. And they still failed miserably in teh case of the Orlando guy.
I'd think vetting citizens is probably a lot harder. There are significant protections that limit how far the FBI can go without violating a presumption of innocence. Refugees applying for UN sponsored status have no such protections and face a rigorous process that goes well beyond the scope of the FBI.

You said that if we implement bad policies, terrorists win. How does the removal of second amendment rights fit into that argument?
Who is calling for the removal of second amendment rights?

I'd think vetting citizens is probably a lot harder.

Bonkers.

We have publicly available data on citizens - birth records, immunization records, criminal records, that the FBI can easily get. Hell, I can look up someone's arrest record online.

Please tell me, Spence, how do we vet someone from a village with no computers, no schools, no jails, etc? Other than asking each refugee, "do you promise not to kill anyone", how the hell do you confirm anything?

Have fun with that.

Bonkers.

We have publicly available data on citizens - birth records, immunization records, criminal records, that the FBI can easily get. Hell, I can look up someone's arrest record online.
What good is that against someone with a clean record who can walk into a gun store and pick up some weapons?

Please tell me, Spence, how do we vet someone from a village with no computers, no schools, no jails, etc? Other than asking each refugee, "do you promise not to kill anyone", how the hell do you confirm anything?
I don't think you understand the process.

Who is calling for the removal of second amendment rights?


I can tell you who,
pretty much any and all of the politicians who are trying to infringe our rights with further gun control legislation seeing as we already have enough laws on the books and they need to be enforced before any more infringement happens. That includes Senator Warren to begin with and all the rest who choose to take the lazy approach to issues of violence.

I can tell you who,
pretty much any and all of the politicians who are trying to infringe our rights with further gun control legislation seeing as we already have enough laws on the books and they need to be enforced before any more infringement happens. That includes Senator Warren to begin with and all the rest who choose to take the lazy approach to issues of violence.
Yea, and left-wing nuts like four star Generals McChrystal and Petraeus who don't think the public has a rational need for a 223 semi auto configured with assault features.

What freaks.

What good is that against someone with a clean record who can walk into a gun store and pick up some weapons?


https://d.justpo.st/media/images/2014/09/9479284ed5b33009e3828cfd8fcc4738.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://d.justpo.st/media/images/2014/09/9479284ed5b33009e3828cfd8fcc4738.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Inverse and it will make sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, and left-wing nuts like four star Generals McChrystal and Petraeus who don't think the public has a rational need for a 223 semi auto configured with assault features.

What freaks.

Freaks? Is this some new Progressive buzzword which is supposed to make us all meekly surrender to how right you are? Progressives are not "nuts" or "freaks." They are very rational. They are extremely persistent. And they are totally full their supposedly superior wisdom. Which makes one wonder why they need buzzwords to convince us of that wisdom. And why they need to change the meaning of words to give their arguments the appearance of truth.

And they told us from their beginning that the Constitution is an impediment to the way they must govern. They have said EXACTLY so IN THEIR OWN WORDS. But the rest of us, of course, are too ignorant of how right they are, how backward we are, and how better we and the rest of the world would be if we, and the Constitution, would just get out of their way so they could lead us into their Brave New World.

So, YES, the Progressives (mostly Democrats) want to abolish the Second Amendment. It is a prominent piece of what remains of the Constitution after they have eviscerated most of the rest. They intend, piece by piece, to finish the job and are free to rule us by fiat, fancied over with phony Orwellian newspeak. The fact that you cannot see that is evidence, as you accused Jim re the vetting process, that you don't understand the process. You don't understand the Constitutional process, nor the process by which it is being dismantled. And you simply accept strings of pretty sounding words and phrases which actually destroy that process. And, somehow, when people like Petraeus, a traitor, or HRC, a psychopathic liar, or Obama, a critic of the Constitution, say those words and phrases, you swoon over them like a subdued lover.

But your love affair is, as love affairs usually are, blind. And you think you understand everything the object of your infatuation does or says. You think you "understand" the vetting process because its string of words makes it so. If we just follow the words, we have little to fear. Oh, how Progressive words constantly change, or are disobeyed, or imperfectly followed. And no rational criticism, even as Jim has provided, are of any consequence. Because the words make the process so. You are a slave to Progressive strings of words. Even though they fly in the face of experience.

What good is that against someone with a clean record who can walk into a gun store and pick up some weapons?


I don't think you understand the process.

That's exactly why I asked you to explain it to me. And you didn't. Because you can't. As always, you take it on faith that any plan implemented by anyone with a (D) after their name, must necessarily be brilliant. Always, always, always.

We have more ability to paint a quick and accurate picture of a citizen living here, than we do about someone who lives in a remote village in the Middle East. No rational person would deny that. I have a background check done on any new employee. I can look up your criminal record online in 5 minutes. It's not perfect obviously, but it's a hell of a lot more available than background info on someone from a place that has never had electricity to send data, or even a filing cabinet to store paper records.

But you would say, details, shme-tails.

I posted a link that details the entire vetting process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd think vetting citizens is probably a lot harder.

U.S. Citizen:

Birth Certificate = Verify Age
Social Security Card = Verify Employment History
Drivers License = Driving Record/Insurance Issues/Infractions
Credit Cards = Credit History/Shopping History
Bank Accounts = Financial History/Transactions/

Interview Employers, Neighbors, Known Associates.
Check Facebook, Twitter, and other Social Media footprints


Syrian Refugee:

No Birth Certificate = Can't verify Age
No Social Security Card = Can't verify Identity
No Drivers License = Can't verify Identity
No Credit Cards
No Bank Accounts
No Way to verify Work History
No Way to interview Employers, Neighbors, or Known Associates

But he can say his name is Bob and he promises to behave....you're right, that is sooooo much easier.

I'll just google Bob and see if I can find his facebook account.... :rolleyes:

I posted a link that details the entire vetting process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no doubt that we have had a significant increase in the amount of immigrants allowed to come into this country wether on work visas or as refugees . Not to mention the illegal immigrants that are allowed to stay and continue coming .
My question is why and how does it benefit this country ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I posted a link that details the entire vetting process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You also posted a link saying that this was the act of a jilted lover, not terrorism.

Let's dive into that a bit. We have the shooter's own words, HIS OWN WORDS, saying that he did what he did, for Allah. Not god enough for you.

We have a 3rd party who says it was a romantic squabble. And that 3rd party declaration, in your mind, has more credibility than what the shooter himself confessed.

Cue the 'twilight zone' music.

You always choose politics over facts and common sense. Always, always, always. Anything that shields your beloved from criticism.

U.S. Citizen:

Birth Certificate = Verify Age
Social Security Card = Verify Employment History
Drivers License = Driving Record/Insurance Issues/Infractions
Credit Cards = Credit History/Shopping History
Bank Accounts = Financial History/Transactions/

Interview Employers, Neighbors, Known Associates.
Check Facebook, Twitter, and other Social Media footprints


Syrian Refugee:

No Birth Certificate = Can't verify Age
No Social Security Card = Can't verify Identity
No Drivers License = Can't verify Identity
No Credit Cards
No Bank Accounts
No Way to verify Work History
No Way to interview Employers, Neighbors, or Known Associates

But he can say his name is Bob and he promises to behave....you're right, that is sooooo much easier.

I'll just google Bob and see if I can find his facebook account.... :rolleyes:

Gee, when you put it that way...

It's kind of fun watching Spence unravel between this thread and the caterpillar one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's kind of fun watching Spence unravel between this thread and the caterpillar one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe we should reopen the Bengazi thread
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

....or the E-Mail server thread

Right now he's locked in the bathroom sitting in the shower, clutching his knees to his chest and rocking back and forth while his wife is banging on the door and yelling at him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

U.S. Citizen:

Birth Certificate = Verify Age
Social Security Card = Verify Employment History
Drivers License = Driving Record/Insurance Issues/Infractions
Credit Cards = Credit History/Shopping History
Bank Accounts = Financial History/Transactions/

Interview Employers, Neighbors, Known Associates.
Check Facebook, Twitter, and other Social Media footprints


Syrian Refugee:

No Birth Certificate = Can't verify Age
No Social Security Card = Can't verify Identity
No Drivers License = Can't verify Identity
No Credit Cards
No Bank Accounts
No Way to verify Work History
No Way to interview Employers, Neighbors, or Known Associates

But he can say his name is Bob and he promises to behave....you're right, that is sooooo much easier.

I'll just google Bob and see if I can find his facebook account.... :rolleyes:
You're missing the point. The FBI can't access most of that without a warrant. You also make it sound like the vetting process is totally open, it's not...read up.

Maybe we should reopen the Bengazi thread
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sure, I'd like to hear your thoughts about Trey Gowdy spending 7 million taxpayer dollars to uncover essentially no new information.

You also posted a link saying that this was the act of a jilted lover, not terrorism.

Let's dive into that a bit. We have the shooter's own words, HIS OWN WORDS, saying that he did what he did, for Allah. Not god enough for you.

We have a 3rd party who says it was a romantic squabble. And that 3rd party declaration, in your mind, has more credibility than what the shooter himself confessed.

Cue the 'twilight zone' music.

You always choose politics over facts and common sense. Always, always, always. Anything that shields your beloved from criticism.
I think it's quite reasonable to believe someone with life or mental issues could be drawn to extremism and reach a breaking point. Looks like it happened with Hassan at Ft Hood and quite possibly here.

Think like a detective Jim...

You're missing the point. The FBI can't access most of that without a warrant. You also make it sound like the vetting process is totally open, it's not...read up.

No, You're missing the point(s)

A) I'm already a citizen so, yeah you need a warrant due to my constitutional rights. but since I'm already a citizen I don't need to apply to come here and/or become a citizen. That makes that entire argument moot

B) If you want to come here and become a citizen, you should be voluntarily providing me with all that information so that I can properly vet you.

C) If you can't voluntarily provide that information so we can vet you, because none of it exists or is accessible....then how do we successfully vet you? (here's a hint: You can't)

You're missing the point. The FBI can't access most of that without a warrant. You also make it sound like the vetting process is totally open, it's not...read up.

No, you are missing the point. Because whatever the FBI can access even without a warrant, is more than anyone can access about a refugee from Syria who lived in a village with no information to even try to access.

It's obvious common sense. If we can't detect terrorists among our own citizens, only you would say it's easier to weed out terrorists from a crowd of Middle Eastern refugees, when we probably can't even confirm their identity, let alone their background, in some cases.

I think it's quite reasonable to believe someone with life or mental issues could be drawn to extremism and reach a breaking point. Looks like it happened with Hassan at Ft Hood and quite possibly here.

Think like a detective Jim...

Yes, it's possible. But what evidence is there, that's more compelling than the man's own confession?

Think like someone who isn't in love with Obama, Spence...

Sure, I'd like to hear your thoughts about Trey Gowdy spending 7 million taxpayer dollars to uncover essentially no new information.

Think of how little we would have known without Trey . You would have liked that .
We know now that they intentionally didn't provide help . Speaks volumes unless you hold your fingers in your ears . And didn't those 4 dead Americans deserve due diligence ?
Also I believe the FBI has spent more on the email scandal , which could have been avoided if she wasn't corrupt .
7 million ? Pennies compared to a yearly Martha's Vinyard vaca for your spank buddy . 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're missing the point. The FBI can't access most of that without a warrant. You also make it sound like the vetting process is totally open, it's not...read up.

Sooo....Lets read up...shall we. this is the procedure from your link.

Step 1: Collects identifying documents (as was mentioned, none exist)
Collect Bio Data: Name, Address, Birthday, Place of Birth (No Documents exist to VERIFY any of this information)

Collect Biometrics: Iris Scans (Newsflash, this is to help identify them for future ID in case of an issue, There is NOTHING that exists that can link them to past actions)


Step 2: Collects Identifying Documents (Huh, did these all of a sudden magically appear)

Create an Applicant File. (Ooooohhh now we mean business, we have an actual folder that has all of your supposed unverified information on it)


Step 3: US Security Agencies screen the Candidate (so they use all the unverified data collected to see if any flags pop, but since the data could be false.....everything looks good)


Step 4: The Interviews are conducted. (This is where they promise to work and play well with others)


Step 5: Fingerprints are screened (again if there is no database to bounce these against then they are good)


....and according to your link this is the end of the Security portion of the vetting process.

do I need to go on......point is....if the initial information is false, the entire process they follow is built upon false data.

But the graphic they used is a might purty....so I can see where you might be lulled into a false sense of security.

Sooo....Lets read up...shall we. this is the procedure from your link.

Step 1: Collects identifying documents (as was mentioned, none exist)
Collect Bio Data: Name, Address, Birthday, Place of Birth (No Documents exist to VERIFY any of this information)

Collect Biometrics: Iris Scans (Newsflash, this is to help identify them for future ID in case of an issue, There is NOTHING that exists that can link them to past actions)


Step 2: Collects Identifying Documents (Huh, did these all of a sudden magically appear)

Create an Applicant File. (Ooooohhh now we mean business, we have an actual folder that has all of your supposed unverified information on it)


Step 3: US Security Agencies screen the Candidate (so they use all the unverified data collected to see if any flags pop, but since the data could be false.....everything looks good)


Step 4: The Interviews are conducted. (This is where they promise to work and play well with others)


Step 5: Fingerprints are screened (again if there is no database to bounce these against then they are good)


....and according to your link this is the end of the Security portion of the vetting process.

do I need to go on......point is....if the initial information is false, the entire process they follow is built upon false data.

But the graphic they used is a might purty....so I can see where you might be lulled into a false sense of security.

Well I don't know about you, but that puts my mind at ease...

As you pointed out, all this presumes that (1) records exist on these people, and that (2) there is a mechanism for verifying said records.

Oh yes, that interview, that must really cut down on terror. Because as we all know, a terrorist would never fail to announce his intentions ahead of time.

We know now that they intentionally didn't provide help . Speaks volumes unless you hold your fingers in your ears . And didn't those 4 dead Americans deserve due diligence ?
I love it, 7 investigations not including the last and there's no due diligence...amazing.

As for intentionally not providing help I have no idea what you're talking about.

I love it, 7 investigations not including the last and there's no due diligence...amazing.

As for intentionally not providing help I have no idea what you're talking about.

How many of the 7 previous hearings, did Hilary testify at?

How many of the 7 previous hearings, did Hilary testify at?

Truthfully ....0
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Truthfully ....0
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that alone, justifies the additional hearing. Whether (like me) you think that hearing showed that she was dishonest about flip-flopping between calling it a terrorist attack and calling it a response to a video, or (like Spence) you think that hearing showed that she deserves to be on Mt Rushmore.

And that alone, justifies the additional hearing. Whether (like me) you think that hearing showed that she was dishonest about flip-flopping between calling it a terrorist attack and calling it a response to a video, or (like Spence) you think that hearing showed that she deserves to be on Mt Rushmore.
Gowdy looked like a fool at that hearing. The GOP reports on the talking points cleared State of any wrong doing...read more Jim.

No, You're missing the point(s)

A) I'm already a citizen so, yeah you need a warrant due to my constitutional rights. but since I'm already a citizen I don't need to apply to come here and/or become a citizen. That makes that entire argument moot
Refugees aren't applying for citizenship.

Well I don't know about you, but that puts my mind at ease...

As you pointed out, all this presumes that (1) records exist on these people, and that (2) there is a mechanism for verifying said records.

Oh yes, that interview, that must really cut down on terror. Because as we all know, a terrorist would never fail to announce his intentions ahead of time.
There are records and there is process. Even without perfect records you can learn and verify a lot through process.

Big point is that no refugee can even say they want to go to the US. The UN has to nominate them for resettlement, the refugee has no idea where they are going.

Refugees aren't applying for citizenship.

http://troll.me/images/debbie-downer/seriously-thats-all-you-got-thumb.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A silly meme. Really?

There is no doubt that we have had a significant increase in the amount of immigrants allowed to come into this country wether on work visas or as refugees . Not to mention the illegal immigrants that are allowed to stay and continue coming .
My question is why and how does it benefit this country ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Significant since when?

A silly meme. Really?

A five word reply was all you had....Figured that was the direction you were heading.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Refugees aren't applying for citizenship.

Well, maybe I should have answered this with a Spencism....

You are reading it out of context.....read it again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gowdy looked like a fool at that hearing. The GOP reports on the talking points cleared State of any wrong doing...read more Jim.

To anyone capable of objective thought, he showed that she was dishonest about the flip-flopping of causes of the attack. He didn't get her to confess to anything, obviously, no new bombshells. Think more some Spence.

Spence, I have asked you several times, to provide SOME evidence (besides her own self-serving statements) that every time she changed her tune, she was honestly reacting to the latest intelligence (rather than covering her own ass). You never posted a thing. Gee, I wonder why that is?

And isn't it a coincidence, that just before all of her public statements, they told her that it was a response to a video. And just before her private calls with Chelsea and the president of Egypt, they just told her it was a terrorist attack. And when she got frustrated about being asked, of course, she shrieked what does it matter. As we all know, the truth doesn't matter a whole lot to her (I came under sniper fire (which somehow according to you was not a lie), Bill was framed by the GOP to make it look like he fooled around with Monica) or her husband (who is such a scumbag, that he got disbarred, which takes some doing).

There are records and there is process. Even without perfect records you can learn and verify a lot through process.

Big point is that no refugee can even say they want to go to the US. The UN has to nominate them for resettlement, the refugee has no idea where they are going.

What records exist in these tent camps and mountaintop villages, exactly?

"the refugee has no idea where they are going."

So it's not possible ISIS would put a few dozen terrorists in line, in the hopes that any of them end up, or can make their way to, nations that are prime targets.

Forgive me if I consider you 'big point' to be worthless.

What records exist in these tent camps and mountaintop villages, exactly?

"the refugee has no idea where they are going."

So it's not possible ISIS would put a few dozen terrorists in line, in the hopes that any of them end up, or can make their way to, nations that are prime targets.

Forgive me if I consider you 'big point' to be worthless.
I think the majority of refugees are actually from the cities.

Risking an asset that has a minuscule chance of making it to the US doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's also why the recent attacks in the EU have all been by fighters who were able to return to their country of citizenship.

I think the majority of refugees are actually from the cities.

Risking an asset that has a minuscule chance of making it to the US doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's also why the recent attacks in the EU have all been by fighters who were able to return to their country of citizenship.

"I think the majority of refugees are actually from the cities."

Funny how your "thoughts" support The Narrative with 100% consistency. How do you know? Please support that.

And how do we verify that someone is who he says he is?

Only you would say that investigating a US citizen is harder than vetting people from places that still live in the 9th century.

Gowdy looked like a fool at that hearing

What does a fool look like? He looked like a prosecutor asking pertinent questions of a hostile witness. She looked and responded like a typical hostile witness. She obfuscated. Misdirected. Deceitfully parsed words. Was sarcastic, haughty, condescending. Filibustered the time allotted for questioning. She looked harsh and vindictive, a shrew-like performance, typical of her and obvious to any honest viewer. It was an expected performance. It was expected she would not honestly answer. And that was obviously on display.

The GOP reports on the talking points cleared State of any wrong doing...read more Jim.

State (Hilary) was wrong about the video. State was wrong about the danger to the Benghazi Mission. State was wrong about Al Qaeda being defeated, insignificant. State was wrong about who to trust. As the investigation newly pointed out, it was Qadaffi loyalists (those that the administration and HRC removed from power) who helped to rescue the others at the Mission, not the Libyan administration forces that we helped to replace Qadaffi and on whom we depended. State was wrong about not adequately protecting the Mission. State, the administration, Hilary, were wrong about not wanting to appear that we were bullying or controlling the Libyan government, so not sufficiently arming the Mission. And, therefor, about not making it look like we were invading Libya by sending military to rescue our people in the mission, debating for three hours, as the attack was occurring, and as the investigation newly points out, whether or not to deploy our forces in military uniform or civilian clothes. We were wrong not to even deploy a rescue mission.

Hilary was Secretary of State. She and State were supposedly cleared of any wrong doing. Progressives have conveniently changed the meanings of several words to suit their agenda. I guess we can throw the word "wrong" into the mix.

This is one of the many similar "achievements" in Hilary's resume that make her a strong candidate for POTUS.

State (Hilary) was wrong about the video. State was wrong about the danger to the Benghazi Mission. State was wrong about Al Qaeda being defeated, insignificant. State was wrong about who to trust. As the investigation newly pointed out, it was Qadaffi loyalists (those that the administration and HRC removed from power) who helped to rescue the others at the Mission, not the Libyan administration forces that we helped to replace Qadaffi and on whom we depended. State was wrong about not adequately protecting the Mission. State, the administration, Hilary, were wrong about not wanting to appear that we were bullying or controlling the Libyan government, so not sufficiently arming the Mission. And, therefor, about not making it look like we were invading Libya by sending military to rescue our people in the mission, debating for three hours, as the attack was occurring, and as the investigation newly points out, whether or not to deploy our forces in military uniform or civilian clothes. We were wrong not to even deploy a rescue mission.

Hilary was Secretary of State. She and State were supposedly cleared of any wrong doing. Progressives have conveniently changed the meanings of several words to suit their agenda. I guess we can throw the word "wrong" into the mix.

This is one of the many similar "achievements" in Hilary's resume that make her a strong candidate for POTUS.
I love it, so 7 million dollars later and we've uncovered that there were frequent changes of clothing and people who should have hated us actually liked us.

Other than that nothing changes. What a bombshell :deadhorse:

(I love it, so 7 million dollars later and we've uncovered that there were frequent changes of clothing and people who should have hated us actually liked us.

Other than that nothing changes. What a bombshell :deadhorse:

Maybe you're responding to the wrong post? My post was not about getting into the weeds about what was "new" in the Gowdy investigation (though there was more "new" than you suggest). There was, also, greater amplification and clarification of the "old news." But, then, you like to beat the old dead horse of "old news" and "nothing new," and "millions spent" mantra. That's the immediate, predictable, evasive spin you and the administration put on these things, as well as it's "time to move on." Your nothing new mantra has been beaten to death. It is tiresome and not only evasive spin, but actually ignorant. And seven million is like about zero compared to what progressives waste on their pet wants and needs.

I was responding mostly, and especially, to your not convicted of or cleared of any "wrongdoing"--another of your dead horse mantras that slyly seems to make a distinction between doing wrong and wrong doing.

I was responding mostly, and especially, to your not convicted of or cleared of any "wrongdoing"--another of your dead horse mantras that slyly seems to make a distinction between doing wrong and wrong doing.
That specific remark was about the video which numerous previous GOP led investigations certainly did refute the argument that the administration improperly blamed the attack on the video versus terrorism.

That specific remark was about the video which numerous previous GOP led investigations certainly did refute the argument that the administration improperly blamed the attack on the video versus terrorism.

You've used the remark about other things including the whole array of Benghazi hearings and investigations. Your remark is tiresome and, at the least and most generous, "improper." And it is certainly improper to say that the argument that the administration wrongly blamed the video was refuted. "[I]mproperly" blaming the video was wrong. It was doing something wrong. I think that would actually be "wrongdoing."

You've used the remark about other things including the whole array of Benghazi hearings and investigations. Your remark is tiresome and, at the least and most generous, "improper." And it is certainly improper to say that the argument that the administration wrongly blamed the video was refuted. "[I]mproperly" blaming the video was wrong. It was doing something wrong. I think that would actually be "wrongdoing."
Ok, I'll substitute "refuted" with "vindicated."

Ok, I'll substitute "refuted" with "vindicated."

That would be proper. The ARGUMENT that the administration wrongly blamed the video was vindicated. The ARGUMENT was correct. The administration did wrongly blame the video.

That would be proper. The ARGUMENT that the administration wrongly blamed the video was vindicated. The ARGUMENT was correct. The administration did wrongly blame the video.

True and yet the defense for this is incompetence . A defense of this administrations mistakes and mishandlings that has become the norm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That would be proper. The ARGUMENT that the administration wrongly blamed the video was vindicated. The ARGUMENT was correct. The administration did wrongly blame the video.
As directed by the CIA. Even Gen Paetreus's own testimony is that we still don't know exactly the role it played...

As directed by the CIA. Even Gen Paetreus's own testimony is that we still don't know exactly the role it played...

If we don't know what role it played, how can the administration say that it caused the attack.

Here for 2 months and arrested for assaulting a 13 year old girl.

http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_30106827/syrian-refugee-held-indecent-assault-girl-13-at
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here for 2 months and arrested for assaulting a 13 year old girl.

http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_30106827/syrian-refugee-held-indecent-assault-girl-13-at
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I saw that also
disgusting

I don't see these people assimilating very well when our cultures are so different. It's a problem, a huge problem.

There should be zero tolerance, conform or leave

I saw that also
disgusting

I don't see these people assimilating very well when our cultures are so different. It's a problem, a huge problem.

There should be zero tolerance, conform or leave

But these are the people Spence wants us to welcome with open arms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he is turning his life around and needs to be taught good vs evil
there are creeps everywhere

I'm sure the humanitarians will step in and change his ways