Refugees

[MattSunn]

[Fred]

Hmmmm ---I take it those little colourd bean things are 'skittles; and they are edible?


So if 3 would kill you,----- why would you take a handfull?

Is that the question?

I have no fking Idea what this is about.

[BlacktopTravelr]

As I see it we don't have a refugee problem, we have a dumbass for a president problem.

[Designer]

Hmmmm ---I take it those little colourd bean things are 'skittles; and they are edible?
So if 3 would kill you,----- why would you take a handfull? Is that the question?

I have no fking Idea what this is about.

Stop it. Not even you can be that simple.

No really,...he is just that simple....or stupid,...which ever, it is all the same from his keyboard.

[Lechy]

It's after 11:00 PM over here, old Fred has probably just got back from the local bar and is full of Chang and elephant piss so he is now in wind up mode.
[emoji41]

[Lechy]

If you are working, stay safe, if not, enjoy your day. It's raining like a mofo here, but the sound of the rain will sooth me to sleep in a little while. Just finishing off my last can for the evening.
[emoji41]

[BlacktopTravelr]

What if the proponents of taking in refugees are COUNTING on getting a few terrorists in there? Unreasonable, right? Actually, no. I don't think it is.

From what I have read and been told by people.... that is what Obama is counting on. A total disruption of the way Americans live their lives. I have also noticed more videos on youtube saying there will be no 2016 election. Just go to youtube and type in "there will be no 2016 election" and see how many videos you can pick from. [space] [space]

I hope this is more like the story about the boy calling wolf than it is about the truth.

[Designer]

I just finished having lunch with my wife and the topic of the bowl of Skittles came up. She told me that earlier today she read an article where the author argued the bowl of Skittles is inaccurate, proportionally speaking. He asserted that if you truly wanted to show the ratio of innocent Syrian refugees to terrorist refugees, you'd need to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool with Skittles and then say one of them is a terrorist. In his opinion, that would be more accurate.

Neither my wife nor I agree with this assertion, but it does indicate the thought process of the left. In their view, the risk we'd assume by taking in one terrorist can be mitigated by taking in 10s of thousands. In other words, yeah, we might get one terrorist, but we'd also get thousands of good ones. Again, this is a flawed theory.

I asked my wife if she thought the author would think the same way if we changed the scenario a little bit. What if I took 1000 Glock pistols and laid them out on a table and told the author of the article that only ONE of the Glocks was loaded with a full magazine? Then I told him he had to pick one and have it pointed to his face just before the trigger is pulled. Does anyone think the author would take that risk?

The problem seems to be that people who argue for taking in refugees, even with the known risk that we're getting a terrorist to boot, is they don't appreciate the danger. There is no loaded gun pointed at their face, so to speak. BUT, there is another possibility...

What if the proponents of taking in refugees are COUNTING on getting a few terrorists in there? Unreasonable, right? Actually, no. I don't think it is.

The Swimming pool comparison is WAAAYYY the hell off...not even close. The bowl comparison is closer when one looks at the numbers coming into Aamerica.

But that is not the point. The point is,..we should take NONE,..NO refugees;

Here is why:

[BlacktopTravelr]

Well, if just half of what the video's I have watched say is true we as a nation are taking a bath in a tub of stuff that a brillo pad won't take the smell off us. And you aren't going to smell like a rose. If you take a good look at the last 8 years this government has gotten braver with everything they do. They break the law and congress doesn't nothing. They are preparing or trying to overthrow the constitution and most, if not all, of congress is sitting on their hands or helping. I truly fear for our future as a nation until Trump is elected president, but I'm not betting that will happen either. The last two elections were rigged and the next one, if it happens, will be also.

Come to think about it that could be the bomb that Obama needs to stay in office if the wrong person gets elected and the people riot across the nation?

[Fred]

The internet is an amazing place for distorted rubbish. Some people actually take others writings and twist it to mean something else. There is some shitty people out there that just sit up all night typing crap filling the internet with distorted rubbish.

Its a shame because the internet looked like being a source of serious information but of course just a few idiots destroy it for others.

[HARRIS]

AND HOW COME THE OTHER ARAB/ MUSLIMS AREN'T TAKING IN THEIR BROTHERN... ?

[Suzuki Johnny]

AND HOW COME THE OTHER ARAB/ MUSLIMS AREN'T TAKING IN THEIR BROTHERN... ?

They ( the muslim nations in question ) know exactly what would happen if they did......Germany is finding out the hard way and so is the rest of Europe.....obama is doing his best to straddle America with the same deadly problems that are plaguing Europe.

[Suzuki Johnny]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09 ... nship.html

[BlacktopTravelr]

Obama is hoping for, and will probably get, some kind of major public disturbance from these Muslims (terrorist) before he gets out of office and he can declare martial law and stay in the white house for as long as George Soro's needs him there. Mark my words, something big is going to happen before Obama gets out of office and Michelle doesn't want out of the white house where she is treated like a Queen and Obama a King.

Now I have to go get my lousy $600 dollars and do what I can to stimulate the economy.

[SuzyRidr2]

Obama is hoping for, and will probably get, some kind of major public disturbance from these Muslims (terrorist) before he gets out of office and he can declare martial law and stay in the white house for as long as George Soro's needs him there. Mark my words, something big is going to happen before Obama gets out of office and Michelle doesn't want out of the white house where she is treated like a Queen and Obama a King.

According to what I've read, there's nothing within the Insurrection Act or Posse Comitatus Act – which are the two laws a President may use to declare a state of martial law – contain provisions for the dissolving of Congress and putting an end to term limits.

The purpose of these laws are to give the Federal government authority to suppress insurrections and restore civilian rule where it’s been compromised, not subvert congress or laws. The President is not authorized to invoke either of those Acts without the consent of the State(s) into which troops are to be deployed (Insurrection Act) or Congress for their use in a domestic law enforcement capacity (Posse Comitatus Act).

I've been hearing this Obama/martial law theory for years, but I say it's just Facebook fodder.

[Herb]

Obama is hoping for, and will probably get, some kind of major public disturbance from these Muslims (terrorist) before he gets out of office and he can declare martial law and stay in the white house for as long as George Soro's needs him there. Mark my words, something big is going to happen before Obama gets out of office and Michelle doesn't want out of the white house where she is treated like a Queen and Obama a King.

According to what I've read, there's nothing within the Insurrection Act or Posse Comitatus Act – which are the two laws a President may use to declare a state of martial law – contain provisions for the dissolving of Congress and putting an end to term limits.

The purpose of these laws are to give the Federal government authority to suppress insurrections and restore civilian rule where it’s been compromised, not subvert congress or laws. The President is not authorized to invoke either of those Acts without the consent of the State(s) into which troops are to be deployed (Insurrection Act) or Congress for their use in a domestic law enforcement capacity (Posse Comitatus Act).

I've been hearing this Obama/martial law theory for years, but I say it's just Facebook fodder.

Since when has something being illegal bothered obama?

http://www.infowars.com/75-times-obama- ... residency/

[BlacktopTravelr]

When was the last time Obama cared what the law says? The man has broken so many laws so many times I'm amazed he isn't in jail. But that is what we (the United States) gets for having the A.G. appointed by the president. What we need is an A.G. appointed by the party not in the white house. That way if you have a democratic president you have a republican A.G. and if you have a republican president you end up with a democrat A.G. Of course you will have to put handcuffs on the A.G. so he/she doesn't spend all their time trying to get the president out of office.

[SuzyRidr2]

When was the last time Obama cared what the law says? The man has broken so many laws so many times I'm amazed he isn't in jail. But that is what we (the United States) gets for having the A.G. appointed by the president. What we need is an A.G. appointed by the party not in the white house. That way if you have a democratic president you have a republican A.G. and if you have a republican president you end up with a democrat A.G. Of course you will have to put handcuffs on the A.G. so he/she doesn't spend all their time trying to get the president out of office.

Authoring executive orders is different from usurping the power of congress. Truth be told, Obama's done nothing with executive orders that hasn't been done before. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, for Pete's sake. It's the job of the House and Senate to keep Obama in line, not the AG. All I'm saying is the president hasn't the power to invoke martial law or dismiss presidential term limits. It requires congress.

[BlacktopTravelr]

Authoring executive orders is different from usurping the power of congress. Truth be told, Obama's done nothing with executive orders that hasn't been done before. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, for Pete's sake. It's the job of the House and Senate to keep Obama in line, I believe, not the AG. All I'm saying is the president hasn't the power to invoke martial law. It requires congress.

The system of checks and balances, set up by the constitution, is being ignored by the white house, congress and the SCOTUS. The man supposedly has spent money bringing refugees into the US that he doesn't have the power to spend. Our useless congress is the only one given the power by the constitution to spend money. We the people need to ring in this EO before it bites us in the butt if it hasn't already. I hope I am totally wrong about the future of this country but I don't think I am. We have an out of control government, a useless congress, a president I don't think is even a legal citizen and has a SS number from a state he has never lived in. The Supreme court has ordered the people to buy a product. This is not the country our founding fathers wanted or hoped for when they wrote the constitution.

[SuzyRidr2]

BlacktopTravlr, the constitution has been abused, twisted and manipulated all kinds of ways by presidents and lawmakers for the past couple of centuries. I get that. But you're you're saying come January 21st, Obama will remain our president after declaring martial law and refusing to step down and our military will be following his unlawful orders. I'm saying it ain't happening. Let's wait and see. [emoji106]