Trumps Immigration Executive Order

[NATI BENGALS]

This is supposedly doing wonders for Muslim extremists trying to bring in others to their cause.

Well done Trump. I feel much safer now that extremists have a new recruiting tool.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2017, 10:26 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: This is supposedly doing wonders for Muslim extremists trying to bring in others to their cause.

Well done Trump. I feel much safer now that extremists have a new recruiting tool.

ISIS is praising the EO on social media for this reason. There was a radical imam that said that the US would turn against its Muslim people, and this is being used to point to him being correct. This isn't even getting into the fact that what keeps security officials up at night isn't radical terrorists getting in, it is the ones already here being radicalized, and policy moves like this are going to increase that likelihood for so many on the fence. The first generation American young man born to Iranian immigrant parents who now can't see family because of this travel ban now has another thing to be unhappy with his country about.

[6andcounting]

(01-30-2017, 10:26 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: This is supposedly doing wonders for Muslim extremists trying to bring in others to their cause.

Well done Trump. I feel much safer now that extremists have a new recruiting tool.

(01-30-2017, 10:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: ISIS is praising the EO on social media for this reason. There was a radical imam that said that the US would turn against its Muslim people, and this is being used to point to him being correct. This isn't even getting into the fact that what keeps security officials up at night isn't radical terrorists getting in, it is the ones already here being radicalized, and policy moves like this are going to increase that likelihood for so many on the fence. The first generation American young man born to Iranian immigrant parents who now can't see family because of this travel ban now has another thing to be unhappy with his country about.

Blow back is real and you're not wrong, but the idea that "we temporarily banned populations with a high propensity of people carrying out terrorism, and that made them want to bomb us" seems to support banning them in the first place.

[PDub80]

I've read this whole thread listening to you ***** *****, piss, and moan and you know what? Babies. All of you.

Oh no... The Muslims will be upset. Pfffft. Who gives a rip?

Calling this a Muslim ban is moronic and sensationalist. The EO band specific countries from specific a region. If it were a Muslim ban there would be a ton of countries listed. There isn't. There are specific countries that were identified by the previous administration as a threat due to various reasons. "Business ties." That's just going full ******. You tools sit and belly ache over an area of the world where you act like everyone just can't wait to come in into the US and start getting to work a singing the Pledge of Allegiance. Give me a break. How pompus.

The richest part is the moronic graph someone posted. A lot has changed in the 15 years since Al Qaeda was running terrorist activities. The geography of where terrorists are located is different. Hell, it's not even the same people! Western European countries have had terrorist attacks from terrorists masquerading as refugees and immigrants. Why anyone has a problem with a 90 day ban until the US reorganizes how and who we let into the country is beyond me.

If another terorist threat rises up I'm all for banning where they're from, too. Seriously, the minute that soccer hooligans start shooting or blowing themselves up in the US because they don't like NFL football I'll be the first one out there with picket signs to ban them. Especially Man U fans. **** those people!

#LiverpoolFC #Neverwalkalone

But seriously? Don't anger the Muslims in Yemen? Pfffft. You guys must be scared of your own shadows.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2017, 11:12 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Blow back is real and you're not wrong, but the idea that "we temporarily banned populations with a high propensity of people carrying out terrorism, and that made them want to bomb us" seems to support banning them in the first place.

I think you're missing the part about this making radicalization of people already here easier.

[CKwi88]

(01-30-2017, 10:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: ISIS is praising the EO on social media for this reason. There was a radical imam that said that the US would turn against its Muslim people, and this is being used to point to him being correct. This isn't even getting into the fact that what keeps security officials up at night isn't radical terrorists getting in, it is the ones already here being radicalized, and policy moves like this are going to increase that likelihood for so many on the fence. The first generation American young man born to Iranian immigrant parents who now can't see family because of this travel ban now has another thing to be unhappy with his country about.

So much this.


I've yet to hear a compelling argument on how this EO keeps us "safer." It just reeks of letting fear win. 

[Dill]

(01-30-2017, 11:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think you're missing the part about this making radicalization of people already here easier.

LOL, he is missing a lot more than that. There is a Constitutional issue as well, not to mention the sloppy way this ban has been carried out.

What he heard is that we are worried about offending Muslims. He likes banning people and hopes more will be for various reasons.

[Bengalzona]

I probably should point out the 600 lb gorilla in the room: Many people in this country (and not all of them Trump supporters) want a full-on "Muslim ban". And many of those people would not bat an eye if Muslims who are already citizens were kicked out of the country.

I do not support these positions and I think most of the people here do not. But there are millions in our country who do buy this. And this was one of the reasons they helped elect Trump (keeping "the Mexicans out" was also big on their list).

[xxlt]

(01-30-2017, 11:12 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Blow back is real and you're not wrong, but the idea that "we temporarily banned populations with a high propensity of people carrying out terrorism, and that made them want to bomb us" seems to support banning them in the first place.

No it doesn't, and here is why:




MORE INFO

Gun violence - Americans being killed by Americans, at work and at home
About 400 people per year, or about 5,000 people since the 9/11 attacks, are gunned down in the place they work.  Also, on average, there are 32 gun homicides each day in the U.S. (read).

Alzheimer's Disease and the Real Threat to Americans
- Alzheimer's killed 83,308 Americans in 2010 (read).  Terrorism killed 0 Americans in 2010.
- The U.S. government spent about $0.5 billion on Alzheimer's and related dementia research in 2011 (read).  The U.S. government spends about 2,000 times that amount on military and homeland security.

Legal prescription painkillers kill an estimated 2 people every hour and send 40 more to emergency rooms with life-threatening overdoses (read).

If the government were truly concerned about the possibility of Americans getting killed, then what are they doing about the things that actually kill Americans - see above graph, plus these:

• "An estimated 15,000 Medicare patients die each month in part because of care they receive in the hospital, says a government study" (read)
• "Drivers distracted by talking or texting on cell phones killed an estimated 16,000 people from 2001 to 2007" (read)
  

Airport full-body scanners, invasive pat-downs and The REAL Threat to Americans
Americans are being told they may have to submit to either a full-body scan or invasive pat-down before boarding a flight, otherwise they will not be allowed to fly, will be fined, detained, and possible tried as a terrorist (read).  Obama stands by these controversial air security screening methods - saying body scans and pat-downs are necessary (read).

• Two things come to mind:
  

1) "Terrorists" are not likely to target airplanes for an attack, given the security measures in place.  Softer targets such as airport parking garages, or baggage claim areas that have no screening methods would be more likely targets.  NASCAR races, state fairs, football stadiums, among other places would be more accessible if there were actually someone trying to kill Americans. 
2) If the U.S. were really concerned about people wanting to kill Americans here, they would stop bombing and killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia.

• The Department of Homeland Security says full-body imaging is aimed at prevention. If so, why do passengers on the 15,000 U.S. registered business aircraft escape screening? (read).  We know why, because it's a hoax - a way to keep Americans scared so they approve of endless wars, torture and the smashing of our civil liberties, all the while the Pentagon and Homeland Security budgets get inflated and a lot of rich people make even more money.  As the ACLU said, "You shouldn't have to check your rights when you check your luggage."
  

*Sources  (Figures based on 10 year estimates)

(1) Smoking related deaths:  443,000/year due to cigarette smoking (read) and 49,400/year due to second hand smoke (read). Note: an estimated 600,000 people worldwide die annually due to second hand smoke (read).

(2) Obesity related deaths: 300,000/year (read)

(3) Deaths from medical mistakes: 225,000/year (read)

(4) Deaths due to lack of health care: 101,000/year (read)

(5) Americans murdered by other Americans: 16,500/year (read)

(6) Drunk driving deaths: 11,773/year (read)

(7) Pedestrians killed by automobiles: 4,300/year (read)

(8) Deaths on Sept. 11 (read)

I know, I know, it only covers the decade from 2000-2009. You got me there! We all know the great strides made in reducing deaths in the first 7 categories since then. And of course, September 11 was just the beginning of the reign of terrorism in the US. I mean, yeah, it get off to a slow start until 2009, but from 2010 until today foreign terrorists have killed so many more on US soil than they did in that singular attack.  

OK, for those still certain ISIS (or ISIL as our former secret Muslim president called it) is a major threat, here's your chance to prove it! Post your body count from 2010-today. How many American's have been killed by foreign terrorists in the US during that time frame? You may begin your research at your leisure, but we are all waiting for you to blow us away with your evidence.

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 12:04 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: So much this.


I've yet to hear a compelling argument on how this EO keeps us "safer." It just reeks of letting fear win. 

Well, to be fair it also smells like pandering, racism, religious extremism, xenophobia, militarism, infantilism, ignorance, scapegoating, and folly.

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 12:34 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL, he is missing a lot more than that. There is a Constitutional issue as well, not to mention the sloppy way this ban has been carried out.

What he heard is that we are worried about offending Muslims. He likes banning people and hopes more will be for various reasons.

Hey, it worked for another populist leader of a great people. Funny enough his initials were A.H. and that is what many who have met our fearless leader call him. Coincidence? I report, you decide!

[6andcounting]

(01-30-2017, 11:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think you're missing the part about this making radicalization of people already here easier.

If they are turned to mass murderers that easily, I'm not sure why we wouldn't ban them. 

[6andcounting]

(01-31-2017, 09:09 AM)xxlt Wrote: No it doesn't, and here is why:




MORE INFO

Gun violence - Americans being killed by Americans, at work and at home
About 400 people per year, or about 5,000 people since the 9/11 attacks, are gunned down in the place they work.  Also, on average, there are 32 gun homicides each day in the U.S. (read).

Alzheimer's Disease and the Real Threat to Americans
- Alzheimer's killed 83,308 Americans in 2010 (read).  Terrorism killed 0 Americans in 2010.
- The U.S. government spent about $0.5 billion on Alzheimer's and related dementia research in 2011 (read).  The U.S. government spends about 2,000 times that amount on military and homeland security.

Legal prescription painkillers kill an estimated 2 people every hour and send 40 more to emergency rooms with life-threatening overdoses (read).

If the government were truly concerned about the possibility of Americans getting killed, then what are they doing about the things that actually kill Americans - see above graph, plus these:

• "An estimated 15,000 Medicare patients die each month in part because of care they receive in the hospital, says a government study" (read)
• "Drivers distracted by talking or texting on cell phones killed an estimated 16,000 people from 2001 to 2007" (read)
  

Airport full-body scanners, invasive pat-downs and The REAL Threat to Americans
Americans are being told they may have to submit to either a full-body scan or invasive pat-down before boarding a flight, otherwise they will not be allowed to fly, will be fined, detained, and possible tried as a terrorist (read).  Obama stands by these controversial air security screening methods - saying body scans and pat-downs are necessary (read).

• Two things come to mind:
  

1) "Terrorists" are not likely to target airplanes for an attack, given the security measures in place.  Softer targets such as airport parking garages, or baggage claim areas that have no screening methods would be more likely targets.  NASCAR races, state fairs, football stadiums, among other places would be more accessible if there were actually someone trying to kill Americans. 
2) If the U.S. were really concerned about people wanting to kill Americans here, they would stop bombing and killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia.

• The Department of Homeland Security says full-body imaging is aimed at prevention. If so, why do passengers on the 15,000 U.S. registered business aircraft escape screening? (read).  We know why, because it's a hoax - a way to keep Americans scared so they approve of endless wars, torture and the smashing of our civil liberties, all the while the Pentagon and Homeland Security budgets get inflated and a lot of rich people make even more money.  As the ACLU said, "You shouldn't have to check your rights when you check your luggage."
  

*Sources  (Figures based on 10 year estimates)

(1) Smoking related deaths:  443,000/year due to cigarette smoking (read) and 49,400/year due to second hand smoke (read). Note: an estimated 600,000 people worldwide die annually due to second hand smoke (read).

(2) Obesity related deaths: 300,000/year (read)

(3) Deaths from medical mistakes: 225,000/year (read)

(4) Deaths due to lack of health care: 101,000/year (read)

(5) Americans murdered by other Americans: 16,500/year (read)

(6) Drunk driving deaths: 11,773/year (read)

(7) Pedestrians killed by automobiles: 4,300/year (read)

(8) Deaths on Sept. 11 (read)

I know, I know, it only covers the decade from 2000-2009. You got me there! We all know the great strides made in reducing deaths in the first 7 categories since then. And of course, September 11 was just the beginning of the reign of terrorism in the US. I mean, yeah, it get off to a slow start until 2009, but from 2010 until today foreign terrorists have killed so many more on US soil than they did in that singular attack.  

OK, for those still certain ISIS (or ISIL as our former secret Muslim president called it) is a major threat, here's your chance to prove it! Post your body count from 2010-today. How many American's have been killed by foreign terrorists in the US during that time frame? You may begin your research at your leisure, but we are all waiting for you to blow us away with your evidence.

I read through all of it, what argument are you trying to support with this information?

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 09:33 AM)6andcounting Wrote: I read through all of it, what argument are you trying to support with this information?

Math.

Also, logic.

Keep looking at it. I am quite confident you can figure this out.

[Griever]

(01-30-2017, 10:14 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The awesomeness of that would be awesome.

"I'm gonna rip out Clarence Thomas' head and shove it up his ass if he gives me that same opinion again!!!!"

[Griever]

(01-31-2017, 09:09 AM)xxlt Wrote: No it doesn't, and here is why:




MORE INFO

Gun violence - Americans being killed by Americans, at work and at home
About 400 people per year, or about 5,000 people since the 9/11 attacks, are gunned down in the place they work.  Also, on average, there are 32 gun homicides each day in the U.S. (read).

Alzheimer's Disease and the Real Threat to Americans
- Alzheimer's killed 83,308 Americans in 2010 (read).  Terrorism killed 0 Americans in 2010.
- The U.S. government spent about $0.5 billion on Alzheimer's and related dementia research in 2011 (read).  The U.S. government spends about 2,000 times that amount on military and homeland security.

Legal prescription painkillers kill an estimated 2 people every hour and send 40 more to emergency rooms with life-threatening overdoses (read).

If the government were truly concerned about the possibility of Americans getting killed, then what are they doing about the things that actually kill Americans - see above graph, plus these:

• "An estimated 15,000 Medicare patients die each month in part because of care they receive in the hospital, says a government study" (read)
• "Drivers distracted by talking or texting on cell phones killed an estimated 16,000 people from 2001 to 2007" (read)
  

Airport full-body scanners, invasive pat-downs and The REAL Threat to Americans
Americans are being told they may have to submit to either a full-body scan or invasive pat-down before boarding a flight, otherwise they will not be allowed to fly, will be fined, detained, and possible tried as a terrorist (read).  Obama stands by these controversial air security screening methods - saying body scans and pat-downs are necessary (read).

• Two things come to mind:
  

1) "Terrorists" are not likely to target airplanes for an attack, given the security measures in place.  Softer targets such as airport parking garages, or baggage claim areas that have no screening methods would be more likely targets.  NASCAR races, state fairs, football stadiums, among other places would be more accessible if there were actually someone trying to kill Americans. 
2) If the U.S. were really concerned about people wanting to kill Americans here, they would stop bombing and killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia.

• The Department of Homeland Security says full-body imaging is aimed at prevention. If so, why do passengers on the 15,000 U.S. registered business aircraft escape screening? (read).  We know why, because it's a hoax - a way to keep Americans scared so they approve of endless wars, torture and the smashing of our civil liberties, all the while the Pentagon and Homeland Security budgets get inflated and a lot of rich people make even more money.  As the ACLU said, "You shouldn't have to check your rights when you check your luggage."
  

*Sources  (Figures based on 10 year estimates)

(1) Smoking related deaths:  443,000/year due to cigarette smoking (read) and 49,400/year due to second hand smoke (read). Note: an estimated 600,000 people worldwide die annually due to second hand smoke (read).

(2) Obesity related deaths: 300,000/year (read)

(3) Deaths from medical mistakes: 225,000/year (read)

(4) Deaths due to lack of health care: 101,000/year (read)

(5) Americans murdered by other Americans: 16,500/year (read)

(6) Drunk driving deaths: 11,773/year (read)

(7) Pedestrians killed by automobiles: 4,300/year (read)

(8) Deaths on Sept. 11 (read)

I know, I know, it only covers the decade from 2000-2009. You got me there! We all know the great strides made in reducing deaths in the first 7 categories since then. And of course, September 11 was just the beginning of the reign of terrorism in the US. I mean, yeah, it get off to a slow start until 2009, but from 2010 until today foreign terrorists have killed so many more on US soil than they did in that singular attack.  

OK, for those still certain ISIS (or ISIL as our former secret Muslim president called it) is a major threat, here's your chance to prove it! Post your body count from 2010-today. How many American's have been killed by foreign terrorists in the US during that time frame? You may begin your research at your leisure, but we are all waiting for you to blow us away with your evidence.

i think you can take smoking off

poppa pence says smoking doesnt kill

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 09:33 AM)6andcounting Wrote: I read through all of it, what argument are you trying to support with this information?

OK, I am sure you got it by now.

For those who didn't, here's the logic argument.

You said that if the ban pisses people off that kind of supports the ban in the first place. Well, that is wrong. I will explain it another way for those who still don't see it. (Helpful hint: this is a hypothetical scenario: the characters in it are not really sixandcounting and his wife.)

Scenario:

You have a neighbor. You think maybe he doesn't like you, but you aren't sure. You're wife says, "Six, go over and kick him in the balls." You say, "Why?" She says, "I think maybe he doesn't like you." You say, "Well yeah, but if I kick him in the balls isn't it possible that will really piss him off? I mean. he might kick me in the balls, punch me in the face, he might even try to kill me and you to." She says, "If he does any of that, it just proves he deserved to be kicked in the balls."

Now, if you agree with your wife's position, the next time you are driving through the neighborhood and see a neighbor who you don't know, I want you to pull over, get out, walk over and kick him in the balls. If you don't agree with your wife's position then you may want to consider whether the 90 day travel ban (hint: it is the represented by the kicking a stranger in the balls in the above scenario) makes sense.

This concludes the logic portion of the presentation. BTW, I fully expect at least one poster to come in and comment about how I will just say anything to win a point and I am an asshole. This sort of analysis and praise makes me feel cherished and terrific. I mean, it is really really great when people say things like that. They're just grrrrrrreat!

Now, on to math!

(Hint, this is another hypothetical scenario - not really about sixandcouting and his home. And remember, these illustrations are for the people who couldn't figure it out, not for six. I know he done got it.)

Scenario:

You were homeless, but great news. Uncle Geronimo, who was a paratrooper in WWII and killed Nazis at rate exceeded only by the rate at which Paris Hilton makes herself look like a skank, has remembered you in his will. America didn't take great care of vets like Geronimo, but he was able to own his own home free and clear the day he died in a VA hospital, and he left that home to you! You've lived there for two years now, and you are getting by which is the good news, but you can't afford to move and are on a tight budget. Now the bad news. Chez Geronimo, as you proudly call the place, is in a crime infested community. I mean, bad. You are surrounded by one million criminals, and their preferred crime is burglary. You are committed to keeping the modest things you have worked for, but you have a problem. Geronimo grew up in a different America and never had a lock on the front door. The place was cleaned out when he was in the VA, but at least you inherited a habitable - though empty when you moved in - house. You have been saving, and say to yourself, "Six, it is time to beef up security at Chez Geronimo."

You take the $20 you budgeted for home security down to Sobchak Home Security and ask the proprietor, Walter, what the best way to spend your $20 is to protect your home. You tell him you wish you had more, but it is all you can afford and you know burglary is a serious threat in this town. Sobchak notes when you share your burglary concerns that he is familiar with the old Geronimo place. He also tells you that within the million burglars prowling your community there is one who is a ninja and only enters homes through chimneys. The others target doors, particularly ones with no lock or low grade locks. So far, you've beaten the odds but you are glad you can take action now. So, says Walter, I can ninja proof your home buy putting a cap on your chimney for $20, or for $20 I have a lock that no burglar can defeat and I will install this lock on door. It will do the job of keeping the other 999,999 burglars out of your home. The question is, would you go for the chimney cap to eliminate the ninja threat or the lock to neutralize the other 999,999 threats to your home?

(Hint: when doing threat assessments and cost benefit analysis most people use math.)

So, if you'd buy the lock you might also advocate for budgeting money to fight things that are real threats to Americans lives. If you would go ninja proofing, math doesn't really support the decision, and it might also seem like a good idea to you to spend time, treasure, and talent fighting - or pretending to fight - a non-existent (or extremely small) threat to American lives.

This concludes the math portion of the presentation.

[xxlt]

(01-31-2017, 09:57 AM)Griever Wrote: i think you can take smoking off

poppa pence says smoking doesnt kill

Well, at least he is consistently nonsensical.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2017, 09:29 AM)6andcounting Wrote: If they are turned to mass murderers that easily, I'm not sure why we wouldn't ban them. 

I'm talking about people already here. Citizens that had their family fully vetted years ago. They maybe be 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation Americans. Can't ban them, they belong here as much as you or I do.

[PDub80]

(01-31-2017, 08:32 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I probably should point out the 600 lb gorilla in the room: Many people in this country (and not all of them Trump supporters) want a full-on "Muslim ban". And many of those people would not bat an eye if Muslims who are already citizens were kicked out of the country.

I do not support these positions and I think most of the people here do not. But there are millions in our country who do buy this. And this was one of the reasons they helped elect Trump (keeping "the Mexicans out" was also big on their list).

I should probably point out that virtually everything you wrote ^ is unsubstantiated, sensationalist, and untrue. If this is where you're at in terms of understanding "many people" in the US I suggest you get away from behind your PC or phone and go out and meet people different than yourself rather than read BS online. And don't come back at me with the notion that you already have or "know lots of different people". You clearly don't.

With such narrow views of the world and the country you live in it's no wonder a lot of you guys have the opinions you have. Maybe instead of squawking back and forth to people who parrot your views go try and open your ears and listen to others. The hen house some of you guys hang out in has so much chicken poop in it that's it's clogged up your ears.

I have spoken to many many many Christians, Muslims, people from the South, Dems, GOP, non-religious people, rich, poor, different ages and on and on about subjects such as this throughout the entire election process and nobody has once even hinted at kicking Muslims out of the US, internment camps, etc. I have deliberately brought that up to gauge public opinion and every single person and group I have spoken with has immediately dismissed it as a horrible idea, and un-American. It's a knee-jerk panic reaction of the uneducated and scared. Those people will be looking for and assuming the worst no matter what is thrown out there. This doesn't mean that racists and bigots don't exist in America. There are a few, yes. But not very many in terms of % of the US population. But to use the words "many people" is just so so absurd. Get some actual real life perspective.