Trump's Muslim Ban

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:14 pm

NYBF wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:If you make the choice to enter/stay in a country illegally you run the risk of being deported. America is no different than any other first world industrialized country in that regard. In fact we are much more lax on immigration enforcement by comparison when you look at the % of the population that is undocumented.


Got any links to stories from London of police setting up checkpoints in neighborhood roads just to check papers?


What does the city of London have to do with my post you quoted? Are you saying England does not deport illegal immigrants?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 6529
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 276 times
Been thanked: 271 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby NYBF » Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:35 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
NYBF wrote:
Got any links to stories from London of police setting up checkpoints in neighborhood roads just to check papers?


What does the city of London have to do with my post you quoted? Are you saying England does not deport illegal immigrants?


In fact we are much more lax on immigration enforcement by comparison


I gave an example of something the current regime is doing. You said America is "much more lax." Do you have examples of other "first world industrialized" countries that do similar things?
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 228 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:04 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
NYBF wrote:Anyone have a problem with the woman in Texas who was at the courthouse to get a restraining order against her abusive boyfriend getting picked up by ICE based on a tip from her abusive boyfriend?



Ive got no problem with someone getting a restraining order against an abusive boyfriend

Ive got no problem with the guy (abusive or otherwise) reporting an illegal

I have no problem with the government acting on both claims



mightyleemoon wrote:I don't understand why people get upset when someone gets deported when they are in the country illegally. And, I would think if I decided to go to, say, Ireland illegally...that I would try to keep my head down and stay unnoticed. I wouldn't go to the cops about anything...not even for a restraining order. Yea, it would suck. But, I'm pretty sure I would understand that's the life I would be choosing when I decide to circumvent legal means.

BTW: I'm also not for rounding them up and deporting, either. That's a massive waste of funds and energy to seek them out. But, whenever they're dumb enough to poke their head up and call attention to themselves...I don't get why anyone would be upset that they end up being sent back to where they came from.

I agree with both of you
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 2739
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 204 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:08 pm

NYBF wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
What does the city of London have to do with my post you quoted? Are you saying England does not deport illegal immigrants?


In fact we are much more lax on immigration enforcement by comparison


I gave an example of something the current regime is doing. You said America is "much more lax." Do you have examples of other "first world industrialized" countries that do similar things?


Here is actual comment I made that you cherry picked to move the goal posts.

DreadNaught wrote:If you make the choice to enter/stay in a country illegally you run the risk of being deported. America is no different than any other first world industrialized country in that regard.


Do you have a link to verified story regarding you claim of "checkpoints in neighborhood roads just to check papers".

Here is what ICE had to say yesterday..

ICEVerified account
‏@ICEgov

Reports of ICE checkpoints and sweeps or “roundups” are false, dangerous and irresponsible.


Now in regard to your earlier post about 'woman in Texas who was at the courthouse to get a restraining order against her abusive boyfriend getting picked up by ICE based on a tip from her abusive boyfriend'. She had been previously deported SIX times since 2010 for crimes including possession of stolen mail, false imprisonment and assault.

The alleged abuser, Mario Alberto De Avila, is jailed on a charge of forgery of a financial document, the criminal complaint states.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to comment Wednesday to questions about the incident.

The criminal complaint states that on Feb. 2, Homeland Security Investigations Border Enforcement Security Taskforce agents received information that Irvin Gonzalez, who also is known as Ervin Gonzalez, was in the U.S. despite having been previously deported. The information received stated that Gonzalez was staying at the Center Against Sexual and Family Violence.

The complaint, filed Feb. 9, indicates that Gonzalez, whom Bernal identified as transgender, had been deported six times since 2010 — apparently after arrests for crimes including possession of stolen mail, false imprisonment and assault.

Its narrative differs, however, from what Bernal unearthed in her investigation in a key respect. The complaint says Gonzalez was arrested on the street, while investigators looking into the detention for Bernal said it happened inside the courthouse.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 6529
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 276 times
Been thanked: 271 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:46 pm

Well, so much for "I have a feeling this EO is eventually going to win in court".

There will be no more hearings in the 9th circuit regarding this EO. Donald Administration has rescinded it and requested the court not to continue.

They lost.

They'll go back to the drawing board.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 243 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Bootz2004 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:51 pm

Corsair wrote:Well, so much for "I have a feeling this EO is eventually going to win in court".

There will be no more hearings in the 9th circuit regarding this EO. Donald Administration has rescinded it and requested the court not to continue.

They lost.

They'll go back to the drawing board.


FAKE NEWS
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 14726
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 345 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:01 am

Corsair wrote:Well, so much for "I have a feeling this EO is eventually going to win in court".

There will be no more hearings in the 9th circuit regarding this EO. Donald Administration has rescinded it and requested the court not to continue.

They lost.

They'll go back to the drawing board.


He stated yesterday that a new EO on vetting will be signed next week.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 6529
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 276 times
Been thanked: 271 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:02 am

Brazen331 wrote:If this goes to the SC right now I predict a 5-3 ruling in Trump's favor as I think Kennedy sides with the majority here. With Ginsberg and the Obama appointees it is impossible to get to 6-2.

Good call!
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 2739
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 204 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:05 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Corsair wrote:Well, so much for "I have a feeling this EO is eventually going to win in court".

There will be no more hearings in the 9th circuit regarding this EO. Donald Administration has rescinded it and requested the court not to continue.

They lost.

They'll go back to the drawing board.


He stated yesterday that a new EO on vetting will be signed next week.

But I thought the so-call president said that he'd "SEE YOU IN COURT" and he was going to get the previous EO upheld? Is he already tired of winning so much?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 2739
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 204 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Sat Feb 25, 2017 3:16 pm

Funny story:
Donnie wanted a report from DHS that would back up his Muslim ban, politicizing the intel. (Much like how we wanted the intelligence agencies to prove that Iraq did 9/11 so Bush could go to war)

Unfortunately, the DHS found the opposite of what he wanted.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Analysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.

A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.

Trump cited terrorism concerns as the primary reason he signed the sweeping temporary travel ban in late January, which also halted the U.S. refugee program. A federal judge in Washington state blocked the government from carrying out the order earlier this month. Trump said Friday a new edict would be announced soon. The administration has been working on a new version that could withstand legal challenges.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Gillian Christensen on Friday did not dispute the report's authenticity, but said it was not a final comprehensive review of the government's intelligence.

"While DHS was asked to draft a comprehensive report on this issue, the document you're referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source versus an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing," Christensen said. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."

The Homeland Security report is based on unclassified information from Justice Department press releases on terrorism-related convictions and attackers killed in the act, State Department visa statistics, the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment from the U.S. intelligence community and the State Department Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.

The three-page report challenges Trump's core claims. It said that of 82 people the government determined were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to carry out or try to carry out an attack in the United States, just over half were U.S. citizens born in the United States. The others were from 26 countries, led by Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq and Uzbekistan. Of these, only Somalia and Iraq were among the seven nations included in the ban.

Of the other five nations, one person each from Iran, Sudan and Yemen was also involved in those terrorism cases, but none from Syria. It did not say if any were Libyan.

The report also found that terrorist organizations in Iran, Libya, Somalia and Sudan are regionally focused, while groups in Iraq, Syria and Yemen do pose a threat to the U.S.

The seven countries were included in a law President Barack Obama signed in 2015 that updated visa requirements for foreigners who had traveled to those countries.

Christensen said the countries were also selected in part because they lacked the ability to properly vet their citizens and don't cooperate with U.S. efforts to screen people hoping to come to the U.S.

The report was prepared as part of an internal review Trump requested after his executive order was blocked by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was drafted by staff of the Homeland Security Department's Intelligence and Analysis branch at the direction of its acting leader, David Glawe.

White House spokesman Michael Short said this was not the full report that Trump had requested. He said he believes "the intel community is combining resources to put together a comprehensive report using all available sources, not just open sources, and which is driven by data, not politics."

The intelligence document was circulated beyond Homeland Security.

The draft document reflects the tensions between the president's political appointees and the civil servants tasked with carrying out Trump's ambitious and aggressive agenda. Trump has repeatedly complained about leaks meant to undercut his policies and suggested he does not trust holdovers from the Obama administration.

Trump originally said the ban was necessary to overhaul the vetting system for both refugees and would-be foreign visitors, saying that terrorists may try to exploit weaknesses to gain access to the United States. The order sparked chaos, outrage and widespread protests, with travelers detained at airports and panicked families searching for relatives.

But several courts quickly intervened and the 9th Circuit ultimately upheld a ruling blocking the ban and challenged the administration's claim that it was motivated by terrorism fears.

Trump's ban temporarily barred citizens from the seven countries from coming to the United States for three months. The order also temporarily shut down the U.S. refugee program for four months and indefinitely banned anyone from Syria.

A senior administration official told the AP on Sunday that a draft of the revised order will target those same seven countries. The official would not be named discussing the document before it is made public.

In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee Friday, Trump reiterated his claims on terrorism.

"We are going to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country," Trump said.

He said he singled out the seven countries because they had already been deemed a security concern by the Obama administration.

___

Intelligence document available at http://apne.ws/2lSKNUo
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 243 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:25 am

And the follow up:

New DHS report finds most US-based extremists radicalized years after entry

A new U.S. Department of Homeland Security report obtained on Thursday finds that most foreign-born U.S. violent extremists are radicalized "several years after" they enter the country.

"We assess that most foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States ... limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of National Security concerns," read the document, which DHS verified to MSNBC.

The intelligence assessment is titled “Most foreign-born U.S.-based violent extremists radicalized after entering Homeland; opportunities for tailored CVE programs exist,” and is dated March 1, 2017.

The report could have bearing on President Trump's stalled executive order on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries and refugees. The order, which was blocked by the courts and is expected to be replaced by another version, put a temporary halt on citizens of Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria from entering the U.S., a pause on all refugees and an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. Trump has said the orders are aimed at keeping potential terrorists out of the country.

According to sources the report was prepared by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis in coordination with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the State Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

A report from Associated Press earlier this week said that a draft intelligence assessment from Homeland Security was shot down by the Trump administration.

That assessment found that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the U.S. but was labeled as "incomplete" by the Homeland Security spokeswoman Gillian Christensen.

"While DHS was asked to draft a comprehensive report on this issue, the document you're referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source versus an official, robust document with thorough inter-agency sourcing," Christensen told AP. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."

That report was seen as a blow to the Trump administration, which is hoping to put his travel ban on more solid footing with proof of risk from citizens of the seven countries.


Sounds like Don wanted a government agency to back up his position, and instead he got their professional opinion. Surprise!
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 243 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:02 am

They get radicalized because we keep bombing the **** out of innocent people and women and children like the "successful" Yemen raid. And it doesn't help when our president talks about all Muslims like they are all radicalized. Leave them alone already.

And now this orange-faced ***** is talking about how he wants to implement this huge increase on military spending. We already spend the most on the world BY FAR....more than like the next 10 countries COMBINED. He isn't afraid to put a number on how much he wants to increase the military budget by, but he won't put a number on how much he'll give to the VA. How about he stops pretending to care about our vets and actually commits to helping them instead of just implementing a hiring freeze?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 2739
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 204 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby beardmcdoug » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:46 am

deltbucs wrote:They get radicalized because we keep bombing the **** out of innocent people and women and children like the "successful" Yemen raid. And it doesn't help when our president talks about all Muslims like they are all radicalized. Leave them alone already.

And now this orange-faced ***** is talking about how he wants to implement this huge increase on military spending. We already spend the most on the world BY FAR....more than like the next 10 countries COMBINED. He isn't afraid to put a number on how much he wants to increase the military budget by, but he won't put a number on how much he'll give to the VA. How about he stops pretending to care about our vets and actually commits to helping them instead of just implementing a hiring freeze?


to be fair, and I'm about anti-war as it gets, but the only way to maintain Pax Americana is through maintaining our absolutely overwhelming military prowess. We're losing grips on it in every other facet; gdp, growth, population, etc. I sort of get it, esoterically. Not saying I'm for it, morally, but as the great commander and orator, Herm Edwards, once said, "you play. to win. the game."
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Bootz2004 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:53 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
deltbucs wrote:They get radicalized because we keep bombing the **** out of innocent people and women and children like the "successful" Yemen raid. And it doesn't help when our president talks about all Muslims like they are all radicalized. Leave them alone already.

And now this orange-faced ***** is talking about how he wants to implement this huge increase on military spending. We already spend the most on the world BY FAR....more than like the next 10 countries COMBINED. He isn't afraid to put a number on how much he wants to increase the military budget by, but he won't put a number on how much he'll give to the VA. How about he stops pretending to care about our vets and actually commits to helping them instead of just implementing a hiring freeze?


to be fair, and I'm about anti-war as it gets, but the only way to maintain Pax Americana is through maintaining our absolutely overwhelming military prowess. We're losing grips on it in every other facet; gdp, growth, population, etc. I sort of get it, esoterically. Not saying I'm for it, morally, but as the great commander and orator, Herm Edwards, once said, "you play. to win. the game."


We're not talking about a game. We're talking about civilization. After the game is over the teams shake hands and go home. What do you do after you've bombed innocent people and killed their citizens? "Good game man?" Get real.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 14726
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 345 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby beardmcdoug » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:03 am

Bootz2004 wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
to be fair, and I'm about anti-war as it gets, but the only way to maintain Pax Americana is through maintaining our absolutely overwhelming military prowess. We're losing grips on it in every other facet; gdp, growth, population, etc. I sort of get it, esoterically. Not saying I'm for it, morally, but as the great commander and orator, Herm Edwards, once said, "you play. to win. the game."


We're not talking about a game. We're talking about civilization. After the game is over the teams shake hands and go home. What do you do after you've bombed innocent people and killed their citizens? "Good game man?" Get real.


I appreciate your emotional response dude, I had the same thought when I was 15. "the game" never ends though. it only ends for those that lose. and there have been thousands of civilizations that have played the game and lost. they didn't get a chance to "shake hands" and say "good game". they just fuckin died. you don't like it? fine. read a book though. history doesn't weep for the Hittites or the Qarmatians or the Qin or the Parthian. they just fuckin died. and the "game" moves on
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby NYBF » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:23 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
deltbucs wrote:They get radicalized because we keep bombing the **** out of innocent people and women and children like the "successful" Yemen raid. And it doesn't help when our president talks about all Muslims like they are all radicalized. Leave them alone already.

And now this orange-faced ***** is talking about how he wants to implement this huge increase on military spending. We already spend the most on the world BY FAR....more than like the next 10 countries COMBINED. He isn't afraid to put a number on how much he wants to increase the military budget by, but he won't put a number on how much he'll give to the VA. How about he stops pretending to care about our vets and actually commits to helping them instead of just implementing a hiring freeze?


to be fair, and I'm about anti-war as it gets, but the only way to maintain Pax Americana is through maintaining our absolutely overwhelming military prowess. We're losing grips on it in every other facet; gdp, growth, population, etc. I sort of get it, esoterically. Not saying I'm for it, morally, but as the great commander and orator, Herm Edwards, once said, "you play. to win. the game."


You're anti-war but want to bomb everything into submission? Interesting. :?
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 228 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:30 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
deltbucs wrote:They get radicalized because we keep bombing the **** out of innocent people and women and children like the "successful" Yemen raid. And it doesn't help when our president talks about all Muslims like they are all radicalized. Leave them alone already.

And now this orange-faced ***** is talking about how he wants to implement this huge increase on military spending. We already spend the most on the world BY FAR....more than like the next 10 countries COMBINED. He isn't afraid to put a number on how much he wants to increase the military budget by, but he won't put a number on how much he'll give to the VA. How about he stops pretending to care about our vets and actually commits to helping them instead of just implementing a hiring freeze?


to be fair, and I'm about anti-war as it gets, but the only way to maintain Pax Americana is through maintaining our absolutely overwhelming military prowess. We're losing grips on it in every other facet; gdp, growth, population, etc. I sort of get it, esoterically. Not saying I'm for it, morally, but as the great commander and orator, Herm Edwards, once said, "you play. to win. the game."

I'm not really sure how this applies to my comment. I was making basically 2 points.
1. We don't need MORE military spending unless it's to actually take care of our veterans.
2. We don't need to keep bombing the **** out of wherever in the middle east that has oil and opium for us to steal.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 2739
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 204 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby beardmcdoug » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:43 am

deltbucs wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
to be fair, and I'm about anti-war as it gets, but the only way to maintain Pax Americana is through maintaining our absolutely overwhelming military prowess. We're losing grips on it in every other facet; gdp, growth, population, etc. I sort of get it, esoterically. Not saying I'm for it, morally, but as the great commander and orator, Herm Edwards, once said, "you play. to win. the game."

I'm not really sure how this applies to my comment. I was making basically 2 points.
1. We don't need MORE military spending unless it's to actually take care of our veterans.
2. We don't need to keep bombing the **** out of wherever in the middle east that has oil and opium for us to steal.


Look, I agree with your comment about the vets, we should absolutely prioritize their well-being. I was simply responding to:

We already spend the most on the world BY FAR....more than like the next 10 countries COMBINED.


I see the same stat. I understand your sentiment. I was just trying suggest an alternative outlook about that, with more importance placed on historical / global context

and regards to 2) yes, I agree as well, the way we've been ****ing around with the oil, opium, the military-industrial/contract complex, is regrettable. But at the same time, fighting the "forever enemy" is what keeps the military as sharp as they are. Its a catch 22. I don't agree with bombing the middle east for no ****ing reason, but I at least understand it. if you (nybf) don't understand the nuance between "supporting" and "understanding" then you're hopeless (or at least more hopeless than I already think you are)
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:21 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
deltbucs wrote:I'm not really sure how this applies to my comment. I was making basically 2 points.
1. We don't need MORE military spending unless it's to actually take care of our veterans.
2. We don't need to keep bombing the **** out of wherever in the middle east that has oil and opium for us to steal.


Look, I agree with your comment about the vets, we should absolutely prioritize their well-being. I was simply responding to:

We already spend the most on the world BY FAR....more than like the next 10 countries COMBINED.


I see the same stat. I understand your sentiment. I was just trying suggest an alternative outlook about that, with more importance placed on historical / global context

and regards to 2) yes, I agree as well, the way we've been ****ing around with the oil, opium, the military-industrial/contract complex, is regrettable. But at the same time, fighting the "forever enemy" is what keeps the military as sharp as they are. Its a catch 22. I don't agree with bombing the middle east for no ****ing reason, but I at least understand it. if you (nybf) don't understand the nuance between "supporting" and "understanding" then you're hopeless (or at least more hopeless than I already think you are)

I'm not even suggesting to cut military spending in this post (although I do think it should be cut), I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is for our so-called president to say he wants to impose "a historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military". His supporters eat this **** up and it's non-fucking-sensical.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 2739
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 204 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Rocker » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:06 pm

deltbucs wrote: His supporters eat this **** up and it's non-fucking-sensical.



What's "non-fucking-sensical" is the fact that under Obama, there was a 3,300+ manpower loss due to "overmanned ratings" withing the USN alone... and the way that the order was worded, it targeted sailors that had between 8-15 years of service - in other words, the front line leaders/technical experts. Within six months, these positions were filled with civilian manpower. Historically, there's a 20% wage gap between military/civilian wages.

Zero. Savings.

No compulsion to complete the mission by these new people other than keeping their paycheck.

Maybe I have a bit of personal bias here, but I'm 1000% on board with Trump's plan to rebuild the military - provided that rebuilding is focused on the armsmen and armswomen, not ridiculous contractor payouts.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Eight One Three
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:20 pm

Rocker wrote:Maybe I have a bit of personal bias here, but I'm 1000% on board with Trump's plan to rebuild the military - provided that rebuilding is focused on the armsmen and armswomen, not ridiculous contractor payouts.

You're in luck, Trump has a long history of not paying contractors.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 107 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby RedLeader » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:34 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Rocker wrote:Maybe I have a bit of personal bias here, but I'm 1000% on board with Trump's plan to rebuild the military - provided that rebuilding is focused on the armsmen and armswomen, not ridiculous contractor payouts.

You're in luck, Trump has a long history of not paying contractors.


Lol. Well done.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1231
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 56 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby SDBucs » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:48 pm

We're in the middle east to steal their oil. We're big bad America that's what we do. Steal.

Nothing to do with the fact that our economy is propped up on the petrodollar and military spending.

But that's besides the fact. We should be letting people come here from countries that have little to no proper documentation and vetting in place. Especially ones that we've bombed/fought with/etc. It's not fair if we don't let Akhbul the 13 (30) year old come here to become a brain surgeon (wellfare recipient/bomber) and bring his beautiful (disgusting) religion here and use it to push for improving (reducing) the quality of life for women and gays.

But Christians had the crusades and the bible speaks out against gays so wtf hypocrite republicans.
SDBucs
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:30 pm
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby deltbucs » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:54 pm

Rocker wrote:
deltbucs wrote: His supporters eat this **** up and it's non-fucking-sensical.



What's "non-fucking-sensical" is the fact that under Obama, there was a 3,300+ manpower loss due to "overmanned ratings" withing the USN alone... and the way that the order was worded, it targeted sailors that had between 8-15 years of service - in other words, the front line leaders/technical experts. Within six months, these positions were filled with civilian manpower. Historically, there's a 20% wage gap between military/civilian wages.

Zero. Savings.

No compulsion to complete the mission by these new people other than keeping their paycheck.

Maybe I have a bit of personal bias here, but I'm 1000% on board with Trump's plan to rebuild the military - provided that rebuilding is focused on the armsmen and armswomen, not ridiculous contractor payouts.

Exactly...and where do you think all this money goes? Contractors. That's how our corrupt government works.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 2739
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 204 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby NYBF » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:03 pm

SDBucs wrote:We're in the middle east to steal their oil. We're big bad America that's what we do. Steal.

Nothing to do with the fact that our economy is propped up on the petrodollar and military spending.

But that's besides the fact. We should be letting people come here from countries that have little to no proper documentation and vetting in place. Especially ones that we've bombed/fought with/etc. It's not fair if we don't let Akhbul the 13 (30) year old come here to become a brain surgeon (wellfare recipient/bomber) and bring his beautiful (disgusting) religion here and use it to push for improving (reducing) the quality of life for women and gays.

But Christians had the crusades and the bible speaks out against gays so wtf hypocrite republicans.


This is as blatant a racist post as I've seen on this board since we bounced winstonmagic and that tommy dbag
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 228 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:24 pm

..
Last edited by Corsair on Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 243 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:32 pm

I say we take him out back and beat the **** out of him.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6127
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 392 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Corsair » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:38 pm

..
Last edited by Corsair on Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 3981
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 243 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby mightyleemoon » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:43 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:I say we take him out back and beat the **** out of him.


Image
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 161 times

Re: Trump's Muslim Ban

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:38 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I say we take him out back and beat the **** out of him.


Image

Nailed it. Well done.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 6127
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 392 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Babeinbucland, MSNbot Media and 2 guests