I know governor's have legal standing. State's do as well.Great dodge Mr . noncommittal
Have you read the Act of 1980?
Oh, wait. I forgot. You're not qualified to do that and understand it! Originally Posted by LexusLover
You are free to move to Saudi Arabia if you like their immigration policy so damn much!Lame. Pathetic. Beyond disappointing.
Meanwhile...try to hold LexusLover in your arms...he is scared shitless to take in a concert and dinner!Originally Posted by WTF
Lame. Pathetic. Beyond disappointing.SOTF...to my knowledge has not come out against gay marriage like all you hypocritical homo's have.
Seriously, when you get bitch-slapped so badly, if that's all you got to respond with, then you're better off not responding.
And since it's SOTF, you can't go out with your usual torrent of gay insults!
. Originally Posted by lustylad
Maybe...or maybe we should have taken more Palestine refugees after the Jews ran them out of the country.
By the way, suckclown, do you think the US should have taken in more Jewish refugees who fled Hitler's gas chambers in WW2 - or would that have been tantamount to imposing a "religious test" on immigrants?
. Originally Posted by lustylad
He would have to spruce up his passport then, and then he'll have to figure out how to get his 18k through the gauntlet. He'll have a better understanding of "vetting"! Originally Posted by LexusLoverHad you ever traveled, you'd know that it is not illegal to carry over 10k from/to the United States. You just have to declare the amount you have.
Lame. Pathetic. Beyond disappointing.Funny, that's exactly how the hookers describe sex with you
Seriously, when you get bitch-slapped so badly, if that's all you got to respond with, then you're better off not responding.
And since it's SOTF, you can't go out with your usual torrent of gay insults!
. Originally Posted by lustylad
Ok suckclown, I'll give you two compelling reasons why we should give preference to Christians. The reasons have nothing to do with being a "bigot":Wrong, as usual. When will you ever tire of having your big, fat ass handed to you? I'm tired of making three trips just to get it all
1. The Christians are the ones being raped and slaughtered and driven from their homes by fanatical Muslims, not vice versa.
2. No Christians are bombing airliners out of the skies or shooting up concert halls.
Those are facts, suckclown. Deal with them - if you know how to be honest with yourself. Maybe Ted Cruz can help you with that.
By the way, suckclown, do you think the US should have taken in more Jewish refugees who fled Hitler's gas chambers in WW2 - or would that have been tantamount to imposing a "religious test" on immigrants?
. Originally Posted by lustylad
We need one like GWB who will send troop into the country (Iraq) that did not even attack us to plant the seeds of Democracy to spread throughout the Middle East!WE NEED THE LIBERAL'S GOD OF ALL THINGS BOOROCK INSANE ODUMMER TO DRAW " A RED LINE IN THE SAND " ( WITH HIS LIPSTICK !!!! ) FOR THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT TO CROSS BEFORE HE " GETS INVOLVED " . AND THEN, AFTER MULTIPLE SOURCES CONFIRM THAT ASSAD HAS USED GAS WARFARE ON HIS OWN PEOPLE , YOU LYING LIBERALS DEFEND BOOROCK'S SORRY ASS FOR NOT " MANNING UP " AND BACKING HIS WORD. SO NOW, WE GET TO SEE THE END RESULT OF NOT TAKING CARE OF BID'NESSS OVER THERE. SO WHOSE POLICIES WERE IT THAT CREATED THIS " REFUGEE CRISIS " IN THE FIRST PLACE, YA LYING LIBERALS ? OH, FORGIVE ME, IT MUST BE BUSHES FAULT ! After 7 FUGGIN YEARS, YOU WEAK FUCKS WANT TO BLAME YOUR HERO'S FAILINGS ON BUSH ! TYPICAL LYING LIBERALS ! MAYBE THE JIHADIES WILL BUTTFUCK YOU, THEN BEHEAD YOU, ONCE THEY'RE HERE INSTEAD OF OUTRIGHT KILLING YOU " ATHEIST " AND NON-BELIEVERS !
Gawd you are an emotional little bitch.
Obama tracked down and killed Osama and I doubt if he asked the President of France, his permission. Originally Posted by WTF
OBAMA WANTS TO DEFEAT AMERICA, NOT ISIS
His real enemy isn’t the Caliph of ISIS, but the ordinary American.
November 18, 2015 Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Last year at a NATO summit, Obama explicitly disavowed the idea of containing ISIS. "You can't contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women," he said.
Instead he argued, "The goal has to be to dismantle them."
Just before the Paris massacre, Obama shifted back to containment. “From the start, our goal has been first to contain them, and we have contained them,” he said.
Pay no attention to what he said last year. There’s a new message now. Last year Obama was vowing to destroy ISIS. Now he had settled for containing them. And he couldn’t even manage that.
ISIS has expanded into Libya and Yemen. It struck deep into the heart of Europe as one of its refugee suicide bombers appeared to have targeted the President of France and the Foreign Minister of Germany. That’s the opposite of a terrorist organization that had been successfully contained.
Obama has been playing tactical word games over ISIS all along. He would “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. Or perhaps dismantle the Islamic State. Or maybe just contain it.
Containment is closest to the truth. Obama has no plan for defeating ISIS. Nor is he planning to get one any time soon. There will be talk of multilateral coalitions. Drone strikes will take out key figures. And then when this impressive war theater has died down, ISIS will suddenly pull off another attack.
And everyone will be baffled at how the “defeated” terrorist group is still on the march.
The White House version of reality says that ISIS attacked Paris because it’s losing. Obama also claimed that Putin’s growing strength in Syria is a sign of weakness. Never mind that Putin has all but succeeded in getting countries that were determined to overthrow Assad to agree to let him stay.
Weakness is strength. Strength is weakness.
Obama’s failed wars occupy a space of unreality that most Americans associate with Baghdad Bob bellowing that there are no American soldiers in Iraq. (There are, according to the White House, still no American ground forces in Iraq. Only American forces in firefights on the ground in Iraq.)
There’s nothing new about any of this. Obama doesn’t win wars. He lies about them.
The botched campaign against ISIS is a replay of the disaster in Afghanistan complete with ridiculous rules of engagement, blatant administration lies and no plan for victory. But there can’t be a plan for victory because when Obama gets past the buzzwords, he begins talking about addressing root causes.
And you don’t win wars by addressing root causes. That’s just a euphemism for appeasement.
Addressing root causes means blaming Islamic terrorism on everything from colonialism to global warming. It doesn’t mean defeating it, but finding new ways to blame it on the West.
Obama and his political allies believe that crime can’t be fought with cops and wars can’t be won with soldiers. The only answer lies in addressing the root causes which, after all the prattling about climate change and colonialism, really come down to the Marxist explanation of inequality.
When reporters ask Obama how he plans to win the war, he smirks tiredly at them and launches into another condescending explanation about how the situation is far too complicated for anything as simple as bombs to work. Underneath that explanation is the belief that wars are unwinnable.
Obama knows that Americans won’t accept “war just doesn’t work” as an answer to Islamic terrorism. So he demonstrates to them that wars don’t work by fighting wars that are meant to fail.
In Afghanistan, he bled American soldiers as hard as possible with vicious rules of engagement that favored the Taliban to destroy support for a war that most of the country had formerly backed. By blowing the war, Obama was not only sabotaging the specific implementation of a policy he opposed, but the general idea behind it. His failed wars are meant to teach Americans that war doesn’t work.
The unspoken idea that informs his strategy is that American power is the root cause of the problems in the region. Destroying ISIS would solve nothing. Containing American power is the real answer.
Obama does not have a strategy for defeating ISIS. He has a strategy for defeating America.
Whatever rhetoric he tosses out, his actual strategy is to respond to public pressure by doing the least he can possibly do. He will carry out drone strikes, not because they’re effective, but because they inflict the fewest casualties on the enemy.
He may try to contain the enemy, not because he cares about ISIS, but because he wants to prevent Americans from “overreacting” and demanding harsher measures against the Islamic State. Instead of fighting to win wars, he seeks to deescalate them. If public pressure forces him to go beyond drones, he will authorize the fewest air strikes possible. If he is forced to send in ground troops, he will see to it that they have the least protection and the greatest vulnerability to ISIS attacks.
Just like in Afghanistan.
Obama would like ISIS to go away. Not because they engage in the ethnic cleansing, mass murder and mass rape of non-Muslims, but because they wake the sleeping giant of the United States.
And so his idea of war is fighting an informational conflict against Americans. When Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity to horrifying that public pressure forces him to respond, he lies to Americans. Each time his Baghdad Bob act is shattered by another Islamic terrorist attack, he piles on even more lies.
Any strategy that Obama offers against ISIS will consist of more of the same lies and word games. His apologists will now debate the meaning of “containment” and whether he succeeded in defining it so narrowly on his own terms that he can claim to have accomplished it. But it really doesn’t matter what his meaning of “containment” or “is” is. Failure by any other name smells just as terrible.
Obama responded to ISIS by denying it’s a threat. Once that stopped being a viable strategy, he began to stall for time. And he’s still stalling for time, not to beat ISIS, but to wait until ISIS falls out of the headlines. That has been his approach to all his scandals from ObamaCare to the IRS to the VA.
Lie like crazy and wait for people to forget about it and turn their attention to something else.
This is a containment strategy, but not for ISIS. It’s a containment strategy for America. Obama isn’t trying to bottle up ISIS except as a means of bottling up America. He doesn’t see the Caliph of the Islamic State as the real threat, but the average American who watches the latest beheading on the news and wonders why his government doesn’t do something about it. To the left it isn’t the Caliph of ISIS who starts the wars we ought to worry about, but Joe in Tennessee, Bill in California or Pete in Minnesota.
That is why Obama sounds bored when talking about beating ISIS, but heats up when the conversation turns to fighting Republicans. It’s why Hillary Clinton named Republicans, not ISIS, as her enemy.
The left is not interested in making war on ISIS. It is too busy making war on America.
Gotta love a lady that speaks her mind with such clarity and conviction. I'd love to send her a case of whatever caliber rounds she uses for " varmint control " and some targets with the faces of the lyin liberals that made this " refugee crises " happen.Originally Posted by Ninotsugi
Once you activate on AMERICAN SOIL... WE will be waiting for you, We will not Bow to Radical Fucking Islam!!!
You boyz and ghouls have already surrendered to the bad guys. Originally Posted by Yssup Ridersays the hebe who supports Obumbo's ridiculous Iran deal, thereby forcing your forebears in Israel to act where Odumbo has not the nuts for the job. no matter. them Israelis know the cost of their freedom. Do you?