Zunardo;1854940 wrote:Doc, I think you're thinking I said something completely different to what I actually said.

I most certainly did not blame her for this act. I knew exactly what I was focusing on, which was her comments and attitudes about fans, America, and Americans.

Interestingly, I had some folks on Facebook saying the same thing you just did, that I was somehow blaming her for what happened. Let me clarify:

The issue is NOT whether what she said had anything do with the terrorist act - It most certainly did not, as far as I know.

The issue IS the irony of what Ms. Grande has said in the past, as mentioned, and how she might view her fans, Americans, and America differently after this horrible incident, as compared to before.

like_that;1854920 wrote:I don't think he is blaming her. Just pointing out the irony of somebody who publicly states she hates America, but now she has security with her taking her back to the country she hates. All for her safety. It's a larger scale version of the people who say "fuck the police," but call them for help when an emergency arrives.

Or to say it short and sweet, what like_that said.

Zunardo;1854940 wrote:Doc, I think you're thinking I said something completely different to what I actually said.

I most certainly did not blame her for this act. I knew exactly what I was focusing on, which was her comments and attitudes about fans, America, and Americans.

Interestingly, I had some folks on Facebook saying the same thing you just did, that I was somehow blaming her for what happened. Let me clarify:

The issue is NOT whether what she said had anything do with the terrorist act - It most certainly did not, as far as I know.

The issue IS what Ms. Grande has said in the past, as mentioned, and how she might view her fans, Americans, and America differently after this horrible incident, as compared to before - and therein lies the irony.



And like_that has accurately re-stated what I just said in a more pithy fashion.

Well if I mistook your meaning, my bad. If it's any solace, I had never even heard of her prior to this incident.

FatHobbit;1854905 wrote:I'm assuming he was a British citizen. You can't just keep someone out of their country because you think they are bad

Right.
But here is what is not working:
1.) Education
2.) Welcoming
3.) Fear of being called a bigot (this has actually been documented to be a problem with UK police depts.)
4.) Preemptive apologies

So, if soft approaches are not working, the next step would be to try a more hardline approach. You have to start somewhere. Maybe not letting people travel to training camps in Libya or other such places might or rather, should, be a consideration.

Not doing anything to try and prevent this from happening (and to be fair, intel does their best but they're not always perfect, nor do they have permission or resources to try to be perfect) leads candle light vigils and misery.

I would even go so far to suggest that the governments of Europe break up the no-go zones. Don't let them begin or stay in place. Nor should separate laws or policies ever be allowed to happen.

Also, this is where I think that insane asylums should be a thing, again. Because these people are obviously off their nut. They are a danger to themselves, they are a danger to society at large. So they should be removed from society until they can properly manage themselves in a constructive and healthy manner. Because I don't see this as just a religious thing. People can be religious up one side and down the other and never hurt another person.

The larger problem in Europe are these third generation immigrant communities becoming increasingly isolated, poor and uneducated.

In the US, you just go rob someone, sell drugs, join a gang or all of the above. But our immigrant communities are generally stronger and more integrated, and so we generally only see "lone wolfs" just looking for something to justify their actions.

Another problem/worry that should be considered at this point is - if Europe's governments won't at least try to change tactics to get a better handle on the problem, they'll have another worry on their hands. And that worry is that the people of their communities rising up out of frustration and fear and attempting to manage the problem themselves. Then just imagine what the hardships and consequences of that will be.

gut;1854970 wrote:The larger problem in Europe are these third generation immigrant communities becoming increasingly isolated, poor and uneducated.

In the US, you just go rob someone, sell drugs, join a gang or all of the above. But our immigrant communities are generally stronger and more integrated, and so we generally only see "lone wolfs" just looking for something to justify their actions.

I think this is a good point! To kinda dovetail into your statement; We in the US have the luxury of having more landmass in general to settle immigrants, refugees and migrant workers. European countries do not.
Then add in the massive numbers of people, that you can in no way properly vet, that are flooding these relatively smaller countries. It's just a recipe for tragedy.

Western Europeans have resigned themselves to their own fate. Once again its time to light more candles.

Extreme vetting will save lives.

QuakerOats;1855026 wrote:Extreme vetting will save lives.

Wouldn't want to profile or discriminate though.

No doubt.


Criminal profiling should be demanded by any citizenry.

QuakerOats;1855026 wrote:Extreme vetting will save lives.

What sort of extreme vetting do you propose?

Rotinaj;1855128 wrote:What sort of extreme vetting do you propose?

Religion, ethnicity and country

Spock;1855172 wrote:Religion, ethnicity and country

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

ptown_trojans_1;1855212 wrote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Lol, right? Don't come on here acting like you're about the constitution, and then you spout off stupid shit like that.

Unfortunately we have politicians who think constitutionalism is a sickness.

ptown_trojans_1;1855212 wrote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

What does that have to do with letting people IN the country? Would you rather just no people allowed in? Or all of the countries where terrorists could come form? I don't get your point, vetting should be done on every aspect of the people's lives being shipped over here.

Common sense is lacking in this country anymore. Too worried about hurting people's "feelz" instead of ensuring the country is as safe as possible.

ptown_trojans_1;1855212 wrote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

I was about to post the same thing but why bother?

It's obvious Trump and his followers don't care about the constitution.

BTW, the EO doesn't even matter anymore because Trump said he only needed 120 days to come up with better vetting procedures.

Where are those vetting procedures and when are they going to be released publicly and enacted?

Another FAILURE.

The constitution doesn't apply to people who don't live in the US... This isn't hard

iclfan2;1855260 wrote:The constitution doesn't apply to people who don't live in the US... This isn't hard

TWO separate federal courts disagree with you. You are welcome to read their analysis.

But as long as you defend this ban, you are defending an unconstitutional EO. This is fact and facts don't care about your feelings.

That's not what the courts said at all. Them banning his E/O does not mean they say people who don't live in the US get rights under the constitution. Vetting people isn't a travel ban either.
I didn't mention the E/O and unsure why you brought it up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

iclfan2;1855280 wrote:That's not what the courts said at all. Them banning his E/O does not mean they say people who don't live in the US get rights under the constitution. Vetting people isn't a travel ban either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are welcome to read their decision. This isn't a debate, you are wrong. Reality.

They said you can't blatantly ban countries because they are "Muslim" specific, which they say he did bc of stuff he said during the election. Why did no one care when Obama came up with those countries? I don't agree with "ban all Muslim's". But I do agree with vet the hell out of them.

I'm glad you support terrorism and want our country to look more like France, Belgium, and the U.K. It seems to be working out well for them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What does the UK's and other European laws say about immigration? We already know what our laws say, but I'd like to know what if anything England can do now that they aren't exactly under the thumb of the EU.

iclfan2;1855292 wrote:They said you can't blatantly ban countries because they are "Muslim" specific, which they say he did bc of stuff he said during the election. Why did no one care when Obama came up with those countries? I don't agree with "ban all Muslim's". But I do agree with vet the hell out of them.

I'm glad you support terrorism and want our country to look more like France, Belgium, and the U.K. It seems to be working out well for them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not support terrorism. I'm merely relaying the facts in this case and you, like most of the GOP, continue to TRIPLE DOWN on being wrong rather than live in reality.

You are welcome to support the EO as you wish, but remember you are actively supporting unconstitutional acts from our President.