President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Boomchild]

We hear so much about "the war on terror" from our own government as well as others around the globe. With that you would think that the nations\countries that are members of the United Nations would be doing more then they are. An interesting fact I learned today was that less than 2/3 of the nations\countries that are members of the U.N. have yet to freeze assets known to be owned by terrorist organizations. That should tell you something.

[RPM]

It's about survival of our culture, our freedoms and preserving our way of life. Not conforming to some others views.

Speaking on the subject of our culture and way of life, that too is in danger of extinction. Especially when not enough focus is put on immigrants to learn the English language and assimilate into American culture. Now instead we have to make accommodations to the opposite of that philosophy. Perhaps we should take to the advice of former President Roosevelt just shortly before he died:

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an

American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/roosevelt-immigration/

I'm also reminded of what Michael Savage has said many times. That the most important things for the survival of any country or nation is Borders, Language and Culture. Once those things are weakened or lost, it's over.

Well said.

[RPM]

Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns.

Fact Finder: Since Farooq and Malik were not on the no fly list, what does that have to do with any of this? Shouldn't people considered too risky/dangerous to fly be arrested or deported asap?

If he's right about that it should be corrected. The other correction we need is to not have a weak
apologetic supposed leader. STOP making the priority to not offend people and take care of the
Presidents first and highest order, protecting the Homeland. They are not contained, or a j.v. team
they declared war on us and are killing our people and our allies . We need a president with some BALLS.

[Boomchild]

Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns.

Fact Finder: Since Farooq and Malik were not on the no fly list, what does that have to do with any of this? Shouldn't people considered too risky/dangerous to fly be arrested or deported asap?

They will use anything that they can and tie it to their anti-gun agenda. No matter how much of a stretch it is. After all, they are speaking to the masses and they know all to well that most don't even bother to check the facts.

[Boomchild]

California's strict gun laws failed to stop mass shooting

Since the attack Wednesday at a social service center in Southern California, the state's strict laws and the apparent legal purchase of the weapons have set off a debate over the effectiveness of gun measures and whether getting tougher would help prevent more violence.

"Strong gun laws do prevent gun deaths. Not every law can prevent every gun death," said Allison Anderman, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco. "They work most of the time."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/califo ... li=BBnbcA1

There is national data out that shows strict gun laws hasn't curbed gun violence. Terrorists usually don't obtain their weapons (guns or otherwise) in a legal fashion. So are we now supposed to believe that by having strict gun laws it will stop attacks by terrorists? Paris has strict gun laws as well. I'm sure the ones used in those attacks were on their ban list.

[slucero]

heck France has the most restrictive gun laws in the world.. and they got hit 3 times in a year...

[Monker]

O Shouldn't people considered too risky/dangerous to fly be arrested or deported asap?

My God, that's a dumb-ass idea. You don't even have to be a foreigner to be on the list. And, if you are, what you are suggesting is essentially trial without a jury since the person could have entered the country without boarding a plane.

If the government even attempted such a stupid thing there be a dozen lawsuits to end it on the grounds that it is unconstitutional...and they would be completely in the right.

Just imagine if you were put on the list, for whatever reason...and you were suddenly deported without a trial...that would have a very real possibility of happening.

[Monker]

There is national data out that shows strict gun laws hasn't curbed gun violence.

That is completely untrue. States are not required to report such statistics and there is no standards between the states that do. Therefore, you can take the statistics that do exist and point them any which way you want.

[Monker]

2016 US ELECTIONS

21m

Donald Trump calls for 'complete shutdown' of Muslims entering US - @thehill

read more on thehill.com

Yeah, that's a surprise...he attacks: blacks, women, Hispanics, probably gays too...so he may as well alienate an entire religion as well.

What is he going to do with the Muslims that are already here? Deport them like he wants to do with Mexicans?

Good luck with that...though, it will be good for my pay check cuz a huge portion of IT people will have to leave their jobs in this town.

[RPM]

Why have we not declared war on isis? Obama says he's waiting on Congress, whats the holdup?

[Boomchild]

There is national data out that shows strict gun laws hasn't curbed gun violence.

That is completely untrue. States are not required to report such statistics and there is no standards between the states that do. Therefore, you can take the statistics that do exist and point them any which way you want.

Well if that is truly the case then neither side has a leg to stand on for their positions. All the talk from both sides is based on no real supported research. Frankly, I think it has more to do with whats out there doesn't help to support the extremes on both sides. Things like, gun free zones, more guns will solve the problem, poverty causes increased gun violence etc..

[RPM]

2016 US ELECTIONS

21m

Donald Trump calls for 'complete shutdown' of Muslims entering US - @thehill

read more on thehill.com

Yeah, that's a surprise...he attacks: blacks, women, Hispanics, probably gays too...so he may as well alienate an entire religion as well.

What is he going to do with the Muslims that are already here? Deport them like he wants to do with Mexicans?

Good luck with that...though, it will be good for my pay check cuz a huge portion of IT people will have to leave their jobs in this town.

You gotta admit, the Dude has Balls....

[Monker]

Why have we not declared war on isis? Obama says he's waiting on Congress, whats the holdup?

Maybe you should read the Constitution.

Congress declares war, not the President.

[Monker]

2016 US ELECTIONS

21m

Donald Trump calls for 'complete shutdown' of Muslims entering US - @thehill

read more on thehill.com

Yeah, that's a surprise...he attacks: blacks, women, Hispanics, probably gays too...so he may as well alienate an entire religion as well.

What is he going to do with the Muslims that are already here? Deport them like he wants to do with Mexicans?

Good luck with that...though, it will be good for my pay check cuz a huge portion of IT people will have to leave their jobs in this town.

You gotta admit, the Dude has Balls....

It also takes brains and common sense to be a President. What he is saying is designed to get a knee-jerk emotional and political response from people like you, the Republican base. How does it feel to have your strings pulled and buttons pushed?

Does a President have any hope of banning all Muslims (a RELIGION, not a nationality) from the US? Nope. And, again, if he tried...I doubt it would stand up in court as being Constitutional.

[RPM]

Why have we not declared war on isis? Obama says he's waiting on Congress, whats the holdup?

Maybe you should read the Constitution.

Congress declares war, not the President.

Thats obvious, my point was Obama seems to indicate he's in favor, but why isn't Congress.

[RPM]

What is he going to do with the Muslims that are already here? Deport them like he wants to do with Mexicans?

Good luck with that...though, it will be good for my pay check cuz a huge portion of IT people will have to leave their jobs in this town.[/quote]

You gotta admit, the Dude has Balls....[/quote]

It also takes brains and common sense to be a President. What he is saying is designed to get a knee-jerk emotional and political response from people like you, the Republican base. How does it feel to have your strings pulled and buttons pushed?

Does a President have any hope of banning all Muslims (a RELIGION, not a nationality) from the US? Nope. And, again, if he tried...I doubt it would stand up in court as being Constitutional.[/quote]


People like me? you don't know me. be careful with your brush.

[Monker]

There is national data out that shows strict gun laws hasn't curbed gun violence.

That is completely untrue. States are not required to report such statistics and there is no standards between the states that do. Therefore, you can take the statistics that do exist and point them any which way you want.

Well if that is truly the case then neither side has a leg to stand on for their positions. All the talk from both sides is based on no real supported research. Frankly, I think it has more to do with whats out there doesn't help to support the extremes on both sides. Things like, gun free zones, more guns will solve the problem, poverty causes increased gun violence etc..

That is true...on a national scale.

But, if you look at other countries that have strict gun laws, their gun violence is far, far lower then the US.

The bottom line is I do not believe anything will change until the gun culture changes. Until it stops being "cool" to own a gun, especially anything other than hunting weapons, then nothing will change. You get people like KC almost gleefully and proudly saying they just bought a gun. It's a serious thing, a VERY serious thing. Guns were invented to KILL PEOPLE. That is a fact. Handguns specifically only exist to either pretend to kill people at a shooting range, or kill other people. THAT is why they exist. It's not cool. It's not something to show off and be proud of. If you can't take it seriously, than you are part of the problem and you shouldn't own a gun.

I was watching this show where Mo Rocca was sitting with a Texan family at the dinner table. The subject of guns came up. Everybody in the family owned a gun. They then talked about the new open carry laws. The dad said he absolutely supported them. The mom of the family (who was a trained sharp shooter) was absolutely opposed to them. She said owning a gun was something to take very serious. If you only own a gun because you want to put it on your hip in public because you have the "right" to, then you are not taking the ownership serious and you probably shouldn't own a gun in the first place.

Nobody argues with mom....especially one that shoots the animal that you eat at the dinner table.

[Monker]

People like me? you don't know me. be careful with your brush.

I actually thought FF wrote that.

But, whatever...the Republican base are the "people" I was talking about.

[Monker]

Why have we not declared war on isis? Obama says he's waiting on Congress, whats the holdup?

Maybe you should read the Constitution.

Congress declares war, not the President.

So therefore, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, the 2002 Iraq War Resolution shall hencforth be described as The CongressIonal War on Iraq of 2002.

No more W's war. Right?

Yeah, right....and Vietnam wasn't LBJ's.

The big difference here is W wanted that war and his administration did whatever they could to get it done. At that time, anybody who was against the Iraq war was painted as unpatriotic and should leave the country.

Obama OBVIOUSLY does not want to commit troops to an endeavor that will go on for decades. He is ABSOLUTELY making the right decision. Until all of our allies and regional partners commit an equal portion of their children's lives, then we should not sacrifice our children either. How much more US blood do we have to spill in an attempt to fertilize the desert sands of the middle east? It's futile...and those who can't see that are living in some type of fantasy.

[Boomchild]

That is true...on a national scale.

But, if you look at other countries that have strict gun laws, their gun violence is far, far lower then the US.

The bottom line is I do not believe anything will change until the gun culture changes. Until it stops being "cool" to own a gun, especially anything other than hunting weapons, then nothing will change. You get people like KC almost gleefully and proudly saying they just bought a gun. It's a serious thing, a VERY serious thing. Guns were invented to KILL PEOPLE. That is a fact. Handguns specifically only exist to either pretend to kill people at a shooting range, or kill other people. THAT is why they exist. It's not cool. It's not something to show off and be proud of. If you can't take it seriously, than you are part of the problem and you shouldn't own a gun.

I was watching this show where Mo Rocca was sitting with a Texan family at the dinner table. The subject of guns came up. Everybody in the family owned a gun. They then talked about the new open carry laws. The dad said he absolutely supported them. The mom of the family (who was a trained sharp shooter) was absolutely opposed to them. She said owning a gun was something to take very serious. If you only own a gun because you want to put it on your hip in public because you have the "right" to, then you are not taking the ownership serious and you probably shouldn't own a gun in the first place.

Nobody argues with mom....especially one that shoots the animal that you eat at the dinner table.

The problem with looking at other countries is that they are not the U.S.. Their "cosmetic makeup" is different. So, I don't subscribe to "if it works there it will work here". I also think from the data that is out there on guns and it's relationship to homicide across this country has merit. Meaning the arguments on both sides are unrealistic as to the solution(s). As far as the "cool" factor, we have Hollywood to thank for a lot of that. Possessing a firearm is a serious thing, I will not argue with that at all. So is the fundamental right in the U.S. for a citizen to be able own firearms. Saying that we should remove that right by the stroke of a pen is a serious thing. So is looking to make it next to impossible for people enact that right a serious thing. Where things are lacking in our system is the ability to keep firearms out of the hands of people that have issues mentally or otherwise. I have no problem with promoting a system that has effective back ground checks and closes the loop holes around it. It may also be a good idea that people are required to take a course on the proper safety, storage and handling a firearm in order to obtain a license. Maybe if we just focused on educating that owning a firearm is a serious thing and not to be taken lightly, we would be in a much better situation right now. Instead we fan the flames with propaganda and political posturing.

[Boomchild]

Obama OBVIOUSLY does not want to commit troops to an endeavor that will go on for decades. He is ABSOLUTELY making the right decision. Until all of our allies and regional partners commit an equal portion of their children's lives, then we should not sacrifice our children either. How much more US blood do we have to spill in an attempt to fertilize the desert sands of the middle east? It's futile...and those who can't see that are living in some type of fantasy.

It's up to the countries in the Middle East to step up and put their lives and other resources on the line to wipe out this problem. Their not going to do that as long as someone else does it for them. Should they continue not to get involved to the extent that is required, then I think our response to that should be extremely harsh. Meaning we're not sending troops, we-re not sending weapons, we're not sending financial aid. Were sending WMDs. It took the A bomb to convince Japan that they better give up the fight. We know how radical they were. I think these Islamic terrorists are willing to be even more radical and ruthless then they were.

[Monker]

Vietnam was Johnsons war. Kennedy didn't want it and wanted to pull out the very few people Eisenhower sent over there. Johnson is the one to turn up the heat to a large scale.

Wait, you said you skip all my post...Hmmm....

Of course Vietnam was Johnson's war. That's my point, he escalated it. He sent the troops over. He had to deal with the public and congress. He decided to not run for reelection because of it. And, part of the reason Nixon won was because he said he would end it. Vietnam was no more Nixon's war than Iraq/Afghanistan, and even ISIS, IMO, is Obama's war...that all came from W's (and the Republican neo-cons that surrounded him) failed policies and tactics in the region.

[Boomchild]

While I think the refusal to allow additional Syrian refugees into the U.S. for reasons of national security has merit, there's also the other factors. Which I have mentioned here and are just as valid. We really do not have the resources to keep accepting refugees that don't have the ability to support themselves and require governmental aid that is open ended. The U.S. has resettled more refugees than any other country.

The US legally welcomes tens of thousands of refugees each year. From 1999 to 2009, up to between 70,000 and 91,000 were allowed annually, and for 2015, the ceiling is 70,000. The Immigration Policy Center website explains that, “The United States resettles more refugees than any other country, and these refugees go on to contribute to our communities and our economy.”


http://chersonandmolschky.com/2015/03/1 ... ife-crime/

Let's just say I'm skeptical when comes to the "go on to contribute to our communities and our economy" part. That's not the main focus. It's the fact that we have done our fair share. But, others would like you believe otherwise.

Based these points alone, it's time that other countries step up to the plate. Especially, Middle Eastern countries. I don't believe the option of resettling them in the Middle East has been exhausted. So where is the U.N. on making the distribution of these refugees more spread out? Where is it written that the U.S. is responsible to carry the majority of this burden.

Perhaps the reason that countries aren't clambering to take on these refugees is because of things like this:

Sweden: Violent crime explosion in Sweden between 1975-2012 dominated by Muslims

While looking at the authentic statistics compiled from government sources, keep in mind that Sweden’s Muslim population is around 5%. This 5% population stand for the huge overwhelming majority of the total crimes statistics. North African Muslims appear again and again in statistics across Europe as the most violent of all Muslims.

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/ ... y-muslims/

[Monker]

Unscientific but nearly 84% say yes...

Poll, do you agree with Trump

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion ... rumps.html

Latest polls:

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 48, Trump 44 Clinton +4
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 47, Cruz 45 Clinton +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Rubio 48, Clinton 45 Rubio +3
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Carson 45, Clinton 46 Clinton +1

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Clinton 52, Trump 41 Clinton +11
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Clinton 51, Cruz 44 Clinton +7
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Rubio 45, Clinton 48 Clinton +3
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Carson 47, Clinton 48 Clinton +1
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Clinton 49, Bush 45 Clinton +4


And, yeah, everybody loves Trump, even Democrats. He's doing much more for Democrats than you will ever admit...at least until the Republicans lose the election. At that time, I'm sure he'll be the scapegoat...whether he is the nominee or not:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... trump.html

Nominee or not, Dems See Trump as Big Asset
302 Shares
By Caitlin Huey-Burns
December 08, 2015
Democrats have delighted in Donald Trump’s four-months-and-counting lead over the Republican field and the controversies that come with it — the latest, his call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States after the terrorist attacks in San Bernadino, Calif., last week.

But it’s not because Democrats think he will be the Republican nominee — a case that even Republicans worry would hand Democrats victories up and down the ballot. It’s because they believe the business mogul has damaged the GOP brand to an irreversible degree and given them a leg up in the November election.

And Trump’s latest call, “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,” has Democrats gleefully pointing out many Republicans have vowed to support Trump if he’s the nominee. Several GOP candidates were quick, however, to condemn Trump’s proposal.

“Thank God for Donald Trump,” says Bill Press, a radio show host and former chairman of the Democratic Party in California. “I think he's the best thing that’s ever happened to the Democratic Party this year, because Donald Trump’s the new face of the Republican Party, no doubt about it.”

Even Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, could not contain her glee about Trump, bursting into laughter when she heard his name during an interview with ABC on Sunday.

A new Marist poll, sponsored MSNBC and Telemundo, found that 58 percent of respondents and 65 percent of Latinos believe Trump is hurting the GOP’s image. Republicans were divided, with 40 percent saying Trump was hurting their party’s image, but 43 percent saying it was helping.

From his comments on a range of issues, from immigration to Muslims to women, Democrats at the national level and in key swing states believe Trump has already had an impact on the general election.

‘The bottom line is he is damaging their brand, and that’s a huge problem regardless of whether he stays in the race,” says Rick Palacio, chairman of the Democratic Party in Colorado, a purple state where women and Hispanic voters are critical constituencies. “Donald Trump has become the proverbial anchor around their necks.”

Trump shows no signs of fading away nationally. A CNN poll found him gaining ground among Republicans, helping him reach his biggest lead yet in the RealClearPolitics national polling average.

Thus far, Republicans have been at a loss at how to effectively take on Trump. And concerns are growing the closer it comes to voting time and there is not a clear Trump alternative.

Asked whether Trump will have a lasting impact on the GOP and its general election chances, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos says, “He may have; we don't know.”

“The answer is whether the nominee is a validation of Trump, or whether it is a rejection of Trump,” Castellanos says. “Does somebody absorb him and win, or does someone beat him and win?”

A new Monmouth poll in Iowa shows Sen. Ted Cruz taking the lead from Trump in the Hawkeye State just two months before voters start weighing in. The Texas senator appears to be gaining steam nationally.

But Democrats, and some Republicans, see little difference between Trump and Cruz in terms of their negative influence on the GOP brand. Cruz has been supportive of Trump on a variety of issues, particularly immigration, in the hopes of absorbing his supporters.

Democrats believe Trump has moved his party away from the direction it wanted to take after Mitt Romney lost Latino voters in the 2012 election. Additionally, the Democratic National Committee argues Republicans’ reluctance to take out Trump is a sign they are embracing him and that candidates hoping to tap into the outsider fervor to advance have started to emulate the front-runner.

“The party’s problems don’t start and end with Donald Trump,” says Eric Walker, a spokesman for the DNC. “When you really look at the policies from the other candidates and drill down, there's not a lot of daylight.”

It’s a message Democrats will push throughout the cycle, and will try to portray whomever emerges as the nominee as in the same mold as Trump.

The party takes particular glee in a memo put forth by the National Republican Senatorial Committee on the possibility of a Trump candidacy, which urges candidates to harness parts of Trump’s appeal.

“Trump has risen because voters see him as authentic, independent, direct, firm, — and believe he can’t be bought,” according to the private memo, first reported by The Washington Post. “These are the same character traits our candidates should be advancing in 2016. That’s Trump lesson #1.”

Democrats also insist they aren’t taking anything for granted. But they are seeing more and more opportunities to paint the GOP in a broad stroke the longer Trump impacts the race. Even if he is not the nominee, he isn’t going to go quietly into the night. Indeed, there is some concern among Republicans that Trump would run a third party bid, as expensive and complicated as that endeavor would be.

Democrats see the biggest potential in highlighting situations where the other candidates respond to Trump.

“Trump's biggest impact is that he's moved the conversation in such a conservative and at times xenophobic direction that he’s making a lot of these candidates compete on that same turf,” says Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist in Florida who managed Barack Obama’s campaign there in 2008. “It’s not so much the words Donald Trump has uttered, it's what the eventual nominee has.”

Another reason for Democrats to be delighted is that Trump overshadows would-be competitors.

Schale argues that Republicans “would be foolish not to nominate Marco Rubio, because he’s the one guy who has so far been able to maintain fairly high favorables across the board, and I think he's the one person who has the potential to change the map on [the Hispanic vote].”

But Rubio’s path to the nomination is unclear. While he is rising in the polls, Trump still leads in polling averages of the early states and it’s not yet clear which states the Florida senator could win. And Rubio’s direct competitors — like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush — show no signs of backing out until after February’s New Hampshire primary, presuming they do not do well in that state.

Many Republicans believe — and hope — that the eventual nominee will be able to move past the era of Trump to start a new general election race.

“Trump isn't doing any favors for Colorado Republicans right now with his incendiary rhetoric, but ultimately, the only thing that matters is who is nominated next year," says Dick Wadhams, a Republican strategist and former chairman of the Colorado GOP. "A strong nominee such as Rubio, along with a credible Senate candidate, would overcome the stench left behind by Trump."

But that time appears far off.

“The longer he stays in, the more he represents their brand,” says Max Steele, communications director for the Florida Democratic Party. “We’re a very large and diverse state and the comments Trump has made about a large swath of the Florida electorate will come back to haunt the Republican brand, whoever the nominee is.”

[Boomchild]

As the Obama administration prepares to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees, a second high-ranking Homeland Security official admits there’s no way to screen the new arrivals from the war-torn Muslim nation that’s a hotbed of terrorism.

During a recent congressional hearing a director with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which operates under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), confirmed that the U.S. has no method of vetting the new refugees because the Syrian government doesn’t have an intelligence database to run checks against. It’s actually embarrassing to watch the footage of the DHS director, Matthew Emrich, getting grilled by the senator who chairs the committee that conducted the hearing a few days ago. The session was held to address the fiscal and security implications of the Obama administration’s refugee resettlement program

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/ ... -refugees/

Hmmm, so what is this super deluxe vetting system B.O. has been promoting? Surprise! It's all bullshit! Now don't you feel much better that he really is concerned about the security of U.S. citizens?

[ohsherrie]

I'm so completely fed up with political corruption and "correctness" as usual in this country that I'm finding Donald Trump refreshing. At least he's making people take an unvarnished look at realities.

I would love to see our borders closed to all immigration and asylum until the national security, political corruption, economic and gun violence problems within our borders are dealt with.

We have no business being the world's police force and caregiver until we can take care of our own.

[Boomchild]

I'm so completely fed up with political corruption and "correctness" as usual in this country that I'm finding Donald Trump refreshing. At least he's making people take an unvarnished look at realities.

You are not alone on this. Trump is not "towing the line" on political correctness. He is pointing out and discussing things that are taboo to the political arena. However, I still do not think that he is the right person to become the next POTUS.

I would love to see our borders closed to all immigration and asylum until the national security, political corruption, economic and gun violence problems within our borders are dealt with.

At the very least we need to properly secure our borders. But the liberals see that as impossible and some sort of racist action against those crossing our borders illegally. We are in an era of racist phobia to the point that it is clouding common sense measures our government should be taking. As far as I can see it's only going to keep going in that direction.

We have no business being the world's police force and caregiver until we can take care of our own.

Our government has meddled to much in the affairs of other countries and governments in the name of "protecting U.S. interests" and "promoting democracy". So in a way we are reaping what we have allowed our government to sow. My point with regards to our POTUS wanting to bring more refugees into this country has nothing to do with their race, religion or area of the world they are coming from. It's very simple, we do not have the resources to take care of the people who are already here and cannot support themselves. It is a sign of insanity to say we need to add more to the pool. Add to that, the U.S. has accepted more refugees and immigrants then any other nation in the world. I think we have shown our humanity long enough. Let others now show theirs.

[S2M]

I'd vote for Trump...not a PC cell in his body. The Don is like Jeffrey the butler on Fresh Prince of Bel Air....dude says the things that EVERYONE is really feeling, but is too conditioned by society not to say.

[ohsherrie]

Boomchild, this country created the instability in the Middle East when we took out Saddam Hussein. He was a cruel, corrupt dictator but he had no connection to 911 and that war was not justified.

The situation we're in right now is the result of greed and corruption in this country and until we get that corrected we don't need to be trying to correct the problems in other countries.

I'm no longer laying it all on Bush. He was the reason this all started during his administration but he was also the result of a problem that already existed. He like President Obama was in charge of guiding a corrupt system. Bush just didn't have the personal integrity that Obama is so desperately trying to hold onto. Bush intentionally misguided this country. Obama has made wel meaning mistakes.

[trekman]

Wow, read this from 2005. 7 Steps of Islamic Caliphate

http://www.spiegel.de/international/the ... 69448.html



Kind of spot on.

I think that a large portion of the world is working on Step 6 right now. Fuc*ing liberals leftists and democrats, Cowards & Idiots can deny it all they want. They will be the first ones to hide behind everyone thats preparing now. It will eventually be here.