Not at all. It shows how badly it was rolled out.

Your right I didn't - big deal, I was going by what the President's admin. was saying. If they all aren't on the same page, I guess that is something they need to work out. They are saying today it was rolled out badly. Dept. heads heard about it at the same time it they were being briefed.

keep moving the goal posts

the big bad wolf wasn't driving around with a COEXIST bumper sticker on the back of his Subaru

Not at all. Pls. explain your snarkiness? How did I move the goal post? Isn't it the Admin. who is moving the goal posts?

Is this like when KA Conway said you have to go by what is in the President's heart and ignore what he says?

Yeah, just that same old tactic to prevent the winning field goal. But it was OK for the lefties to roll out Obama Care way more badly than how Trump's executive order was supposedly rolled out. And we were supposed to understand that, of course, there were things about the ACA that needed to be fixed, and that it needed to be passed to find out what was in it, and that it was necessary to pass it without any Republican approval, and that it was important to just get it passed and worry about details later. We were supposed to give it time to get better. No matter if it temporarily created some hardships. That was necessary for the greater good.

Well, it seems that the badness of not being on the same page about green cards and visas was straightened out in day or two, but Obamacare badness just got worse.

"personally the big bad wolf is a creation to gain control"

I see. The threat of Islamic jihad, is a fabrication, designed to gain control. Tell that to the people who had their legs blown off at the Boston Marathon. Tell that to the people who jumped out of the World Trade Center.

It seems to me that if you kill the big bad wolf that wants to eat you, you don't have to be afraid of it anymore. But if you let it roam around outside of your gate, you will be in constant fear . . . that is such a harsh word to the ears of the compassionate--how about mildly disturbed? . . . that you will be in constant mild disturbance that it will sneak in and make you greatly disturbed, to say the least. Oh, that's right, you can wait for the inevitable and kill it when it does finally sneak in. Or better yet, out of compassion and understanding, you can keep throwing some meat over the fence to keep it satisfied. You'd better not run out of meat. And don't let your children run outside of your fence. But that's Ok, because, after all, it will eventually like you and be your friend if you keep feeding it meat.

But it might cause you to feel a little uncomfortable when you get reports about this brand of wolf seeming to not be so reciprocally kind when it is, or becomes, the dominant power. Maybe not all brands of wolves are the same? Maybe some can be domesticated and turned into nice puppies who appreciate your largesse and maybe only occasionally poop in places that you don't like, but mostly will be obedient dogs, who do your bidding, and even help protect your home, even fight other big bad wolves outside the gate.

And maybe some, because of the nature of their brand, cannot be domesticated.

And you keep getting reports of this brand of wolves mostly preferring to breed strictly among their own and never really, in their deepest identity, desiring to be somebody's pet dog. That they have a certain, indomitable sense of pride which they deem makes them superior. That in their minds they are actually, especially when they are banded together as they prefer to do, a superior breed. And you observe that they tend to multiply rapidly, and seem always to produce wild ones who cause deadly trouble to hosts, or total domination of others when they gain control.

It might give you pause to think about if they can be domesticated, and about how to discern which ones are prone not to be domesticated, about which ones would actually bite the hand that feeds them. You might want to actually figure out, in spite of the difficulty of adding them to your already divided turbulent household, if they are a good addition, and how to go about doing that and which ones are the most promising to let in.

Or you can just role out your red carpet and compassionately let in the ones who were wounded by their own kind. And because of that, believe that they are different wolves and will actually choose (sort of like transgenders) to become (identify as) sheep rather than merely wearing sheep's clothing .

Of course, there are many in your house who see these wolves as allies to gain power over their rival siblings and want enough of them in to solidify that power.

Sorry if that sounds harsh to the snowflakes. But reality is not always kind.

Do I think that Muslims are, by nature, wolves--big bad ones? Of course not. Not by nature. By nature they are different only by genetic tribal differences. And those natural differences are probably not an impediment to peacefully admix in society with others.

It is not in their human nature that Muslims have difficulty cooperating with non-Muslims within a society whose greater purpose is the protection of individual differences, it is in their Islamic dogma where the difficulty occurs. That can only be denied in theory, not in fact.

In theory, Islam can be transformed to fit the modern world. In fact, that has not yet happened. Perhaps Western countries, especially in North America, can help to bring about that transformation by intermingling large numbers of selected Muslims into their societies. As of now, that would be a social experiment. And the outcome is not certain. We like to believe that our Western ways are so superior that those who are freely allowed to live them will prefer them to the cultures from which they came. They will prefer it so much that they will give up their deepest spiritual beliefs, or at least tweak them to fit the greater society. Many Muslims profess the desire to do just that. The problem is that the sources of Islam, Mecca and Tehran, must decree any transformation for the religion to be changed. And to do that in a way that is compatible with Western society, the Islamic rulers in Saudi Arabia and Iran, must dissolve the theocratic power they have over their people and Muslims in the rest of the world. And the difficulty in rewriting the story of Muhammad so that the change is not so noticeable and is believable and without causing turmoil throughout the Islamic world is unimaginable. But, theoretically possible.

When, and if, that fundamental transformation happens, Muslims would not pose the existential threat that so many fear. Unfortunately, there are other problems and dangers in expanding "diversity." I'm, personally, all aboard with cultural variety. I particularly love the wide choice of cheap restaurants that immigrants provide. I love the variety of faces. The different genetic pool, if it actually mixes rather than balkanizes, is healthy.

What I don't love is the importation of mind-sets which see government as a ruling class rather than a serving one. I don't like the importation of group think over individualism. I hate the importation of people to be used as dependents who will sustain Party power.

Other than all that, hey, c'mon in. Contribute to our wealth and productivity rather than leaching off of it. Assimilate. Become AMERICANS first. Love this country and its founding structure. And preserve that structure despite the attempts to use you all as useful idiots to maintain the power of those who wish to make you, and the rest of us, perpetual dependents.

And don't get upset when we want to check you out more thoroughly rather than giving you an EZ pass through gate.

There's that word "Intent" again....amazing how that word was completely lost during the Hillary e-mail scandal, but *POOF* it's back

Trump's EO didn't mention a ban, Muslims, Christians, or Green Cards....but you didn't even read it....so you're arguments are falling on completely deaf ears.

But you read it (or did you just do a search for those words?) and you still don't know what the intent was. Maybe you should read it a little slower and think about what it means. How was that?

Even Paul Ryan knows the "intent"

"Now, I think it’s regrettable that there was some confusion on the rollout of this,” Mr. Ryan added. “No one wanted to see people with green cards or special immigrant visas, like translators, get caught up in all of this."

I might have even posted a tweet of Pres. Trump's where he called it a "ban".

GREAT post debutch:cheers:

There is nothing in the quote you posted by Ryan that says The executive order intended to ban green card holders or those with special visas. He regrets that there was confusion. That does not mean he thinks there was intent to block green card or special visa holders. He fully supports the EO as written. And depending on Trump to define something requires understanding his special (alaternative :eek:) use of language.

which one?

the long one

post #88

WASHINGTON ― It’s been less than a week since President Donald Trump signed a sweeping ban on certain foreign nationals and all refugees entering the U.S., but his administration has already had to make multiple tweaks to account for its vague language.

The administration made another change on Wednesday. A counsel to the president issued guidance to government agencies saying the executive order does not apply to legal permanent residents, also known as green card holders, and that they will no longer need special waivers to re-enter the U.S. White House press secretary Sean Spicer announced the “update,” as he put it, during a daily briefing with reporters.

Trump’s initial executive order , which he signed Friday, was phrased so broadly that it affected green card holders who had left the country only to find out later that the president had tried to block their return.

The order bars most nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries ― Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen ― from entering the country for at least 90 days. It also suspends refugee resettlement for 120 days, and indefinitely blocks Syrian refugees from the United States.

The ban was applied to legal permanent residents originally from those seven countries, many of whom were initially detained upon returning to the United States. More than 1,000 of them were admitted under special waivers. Now, based on the White House guidance, those individuals will not need a waiver.

The Department of Homeland Security announced additional exceptions to the ban on Tuesday, including Iraqis who worked for the U.S. government in positions such as translators. Officials also said the ban does not apply to dual nationals of the seven countries. For example, someone with Syrian and French nationality can enter the U.S. using their French passport.

The exceptions only apply to a small fraction of the population potentially affected by the order: tens of thousands of refugees and millions of citizens of the seven countries who are still barred from visiting the U.S. to work, study, see family or receive medical care.

The initial language allowed for very few exceptions. Some Republicans particularly balked at the inclusion of legal permanent residents and Iraqis who assisted U.S. troops. Members of Congress said they received little guidance about the order, even after it went into effect.

Trump has denied that there were any issues with implementing the order.

“It’s working out very nicely,” he said Saturday.


The latest change to the order came after Donald McGahn, counsel to the president, advised that there was “reasonable uncertainty about whether those provisions apply to lawful permanent residents,” Politico first reported

Big deal.

yes Islamic Jihad is a Fabrication and

this fabrications has cost 4,424 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,952 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

2,386 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,834 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action. 20,049 American service members have also been wounded in action during the war. In addition, there were 1,173 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities.

1983 bombing at a Marine compound in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 US service personnel.

all Created By F up US interventions

So what happened on 9/11? At Ft Hood? In Boston? In Paris? What organization was Osama Bin Laden the leader of, and what was their goal?

Murder ... what was Timothy McVeigh motive ?? just because it didn't have religion attached it is still terrorism


the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism

terrorist leaders like Bin Laden use the parts of their religion to control their minions ,, the IRA did the same and Goverments use the counter narrative of freedom and security to justify their action and limit the freedoms they say they support

"what was Timothy McVeigh motive ?? "

Anti-federal government. Fair enough?

"just because it didn't have religion attached it is still terrorism"

Agreed 100%. McVeigh was an ultra right wing, anti federal government terrorist. People who bomb abortion clinics are Christian terrorists. But while one is too many of these kooks, there aren't a lot of them. If 1% of Muslims support jihad, that's millions and millions of them.

You seem to be making the case that there are other terrorists besides Islamic jihadists. I don't think anyone disagrees with you. But you also said the notion of Islamic jihad was a fabrication. Not true. Just because not all terrorists are Islamic, doesn't mean there's no such thing as an Islamic terrorist.

Let me clarify is there Islamic jihad yes .. The fabrication I refer is the threat they actually pose to the United states ... thats where I call the BS card

Research into terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 shows foreign nationals from those countries have killed no Americans

What was the motive of those who killed Americans in the name of Allah?

I am not sure who those researchers are that say that but what about how many Americans have been killed over in those countries by their locals? If they want to torture and kill us over there, then why in God's name would we allow them to come here to our country? seriously wtf how come people don't get it?

"Let me clarify is there Islamic jihad yes .. The fabrication I refer is the threat they actually pose to the United states ... thats where I call the BS card "

Well, that is different. We should continually examine the threat they pose, and not over-react to the point it does more harm than good.

"Research into terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 shows foreign nationals from those countries have killed no Americans"

The list of countries subject to the ban, came from the Obama administration. Chuck Schumer, after the Paris attacks, suggested a ban might be necessary Now he cries (literally) that it is un-American. That's political BS.

Even if they aren't violent people, we need to be very careful about who we let in. We can have different ethnicities, that makes us better as a whole. But we can only have one culture. And these people are not assimilating well, in other western nations, what they do, is establish little enclaves in those western nations that look a lot like the Middle East. No, thanks. The Europeans and Scandanavians are having a real cultural struggle.

phew.....thought you'd gone right off the cliff there for a bit :)

So we were less safe in November? but now with Trump in office we are Magically safer ... ok sure we are !!!

info for uniformed Americans : Islamic jihadist Kill other Muslims by the thousands and non Muslims it doesn't not matter to them

But here in America its sold solely as an US against Them argument


The UN concluded that in the first eight months of 2014, at least 9,347 civilians had been killed and at least 17,386 wounded. While all these deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone, ISIS is identified as the primary actor.

Here are a few examples from the report to give you an idea of the way ISIS has methodically slaughtered Muslims:
-On September 5, ISIS executed three Sunni women in Mosul. What was their “crime”? They refused to provide medical care to ISIS fighters.
- On September 9, ISIS executed a Sunni Imam in western Mosul for refusing to swear loyalty to ISIS.
- On August 2, a man from the Salah ad Din province was abducted and beheaded for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS.
-On August 19, a female Muslim doctor south of Mosul was killed for organizing a protest to object to ISIS’ mandate that female doctors cover their faces with religious veils when treating patients
-On August 31, 19 Sunni Muslim men were executed in Saadiya for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS.
-On July 22, a Sunni Imam in Eastern Baquba was killed for simply denouncing ISIS.
-On September 9, ISIS executed two Muslim women by shooting them in the back of the head. Their exact “crime” was not known.
And the list goes on from ISIS slaughtering 1,500 Iraqi soldiers in June to blowing up numerous Sunni mosques because apparently the leaders of those mosques refused to swear loyalty to ISIS.

What makes you think that we don't know this? That we are uninformed about it? We have been informed about it over and over. I doubt there is anyone who regularly participates in the political forum is unaware of it.

Those Muslim on Muslim atrocities to which you refer are in Muslim dominated countries. So it would follow that more Muslims would be killed in those countries. As the Muslim population grows, the greater the number of Muslims as well as everyone else standing in their way, will be killed by Jihadists. And it is all the more reason that until we resolve the jihadi problem, the greater the number of Muslims that emigrate to the U.S. the greater the number of Islamic atrocities we will incur, whether they be against Muslims or non-Muslims.

"Islamic jihadist Kill other Muslims by the thousands and non Muslims it doesn't not matter to them

But here in America its sold solely as an US against Them argument "

Please name one person of influence, just one, who denies that jihadists kill people other than Americans.

"So we were less safe in November? but now with Trump in office we are Magically safer ... ok sure we are !!! "

Who said that?

Can you stop responding to things that nobody said?

Really??? What was San Bernadino?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who said that?

Can you stop responding to things that nobody said?


The Administration or Haven't you been listening ..I will use a name if it makes it easier when needed

kelly ann conway
"I think in terms of the upside being greater protection of our borders, of our people, it's a small price to pay."

Trump “We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say
“This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.

Please name one person of influence, just one, who denies that jihadists kill people other than Americans. I cant because the dont admit it its not what they talk about its alway thereout to kill us all


why twist what I said it very clear in the united states the Argument id Framed us against them Trump’s action “is a response to a phantom menace.”

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/...eted-for-death
According to a report recently made public, early this year, ISIS specifically identified 15,000 Christian Americans for death and instructed jihadists already in America to begin widespread murder.


Rudy Giuliani What we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger,” the former New York City mayor said, in reference to the targeted nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. … It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

sorry...this is just dumb.....uninformed Americans are collectively offended