Spock;1778848 wrote:Obama is going to the UN.
No doubt, and Soros will still be pulling his strings.
Spock;1778848 wrote:Obama is going to the UN.
If you investigate this in a normal news source (i.e. not a right wing propaganda site like WND), you would see that this smells like a complete overreaction by a small group of angry white people who are obviously afraid of people who are different than them. The organization they are protesting is a local group and has nothing to do with Obama. The group is proposing to bring 100 refugees to Missoula to settle there. Hardly a state sponsored invasion.QuakerOats;1779615 wrote:More than 120 people braved the snow and ice Monday to rally in front of the Missoula County Courthouse, protesting an effort by the Obama administration and its army of community organizers to plant foreign “refugees” into small cities in western Montana.
One of the speakers was a woman who moved recently to Montana from Amarillo, Texas, which has been inundated with thousands of refugees over the past 15 years.
“Amarillo is overrun with refugees,” said Karen Sherman, who stood and spoke to the crowd amid blowing wind and falling snowflakes. Sherman just moved to Missoula, a college town that serves as home to the University of Montana.
It’s a far cry from Amarillo, which she described as a city of rampant crime and cracking social fabric, thanks to the heavy influx of refugees sent there by the U.S. State Department in cooperation with the United Nations.
“Our city is failing because of the refugees. We have 22 different languages spoken in our schools. We’ve got 42 languages being fielded by our 9-1-1 call centers, and crime is just through the roof. We need to exercise caution, especially for the sake of our children,” she said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/so-it-begins-here-u-s-city-overrun-with-criminal-refugees/#sYHtMMRrsKvG77rL.99
Change we can believe in ...
Whoa, where is there that these refugees actually bring crime?QuakerOats;1779746 wrote:Who said anything about "hate".
What is actually at issue is the dramatic increase in crime and the massive burden on taxpayers.
I don't think the Irish or other groups arrived here expecting the 'natives' to house and feed them, effectively adopt their language, nor lend appreciation to the criminal element.
We can never have rational, logical conversations in this country any longer, because liberals always throw out the race or hate cards as soon as a serious examination reveals facts that are uncomfortable.
These roving bands of criminal immigrants - where are they? Don't point to "a" case of an immigrant committing "a" crime and say "see". If it isn't fear of those who are different, then what drives this? Like the Syrians today, European immigrants came hear when they had not good options at home. Since there were virtually no rules or requirements about immigrating here, it was literally impossible to be an "illegal". You just simply showed up. But the groups that were there before often didn't like that ("Irish Need Not Apply").QuakerOats;1779746 wrote:Who said anything about "hate".
What is actually at issue is the dramatic increase in crime and the massive burden on taxpayers.
I don't think the Irish or other groups arrived here expecting the 'natives' to house and feed them, effectively adopt their language, nor lend appreciation to the criminal element.
We can never have rational, logical conversations in this country any longer, because liberals always throw out the race or hate cards as soon as a serious examination reveals facts that are uncomfortable.
Yeah, but people move to places like Missoula so they don't have to deal with people who are different from them.Dr Winston O'Boogie;1779735 wrote:The group is proposing to bring 100 refugees to Missoula to settle there.
ptown_trojans_1;1779753 wrote:Whoa, where is there that these refugees actually bring crime?
Is there actual evidence that these refugees did in fact lead to an increase in crime? Or, are we just taking the word of locals?
Your Irish comment is funny as hell as you have no idea of history.
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1779767 wrote:These roving bands of criminal immigrants - where are they? Don't point to "a" case of an immigrant committing "a" crime and say "see". If it isn't fear of those who are different, then what drives this? Like the Syrians today, European immigrants came hear when they had not good options at home. Since there were virtually no rules or requirements about immigrating here, it was literally impossible to be an "illegal". You just simply showed up. But the groups that were there before often didn't like that ("Irish Need Not Apply").
The Syrians or Mexicans or whomever goes to the extreme pains to get themselves here are not flippantly thinking "Oh gee, I want some free stuff so I can lounge around on the public dole. I'll go to America." The risk much (including sometimes their life) to get here. My guess is that if you every spoke to one of them, you'd learn that instead of being a terrorist mole, they are simply people who found themselves in horrible conditions that are looking for opportunity.
If our society can help them get a foothold, and that in turn speed up the process of making them contributing members, I'm all for it.
We can have rational, logical conversations with people unlike the ones in Missoula holding signs accusing unseen, unknown immigrants of being rapist thugs.
Didn't say that at all.QuakerOats;1779770 wrote:Yeah, can't believe anything the locals say; there are obviously bureaucrats in Washington D.C. that know more.
Gimme a break.
Again, if you'd venture beyond your right wing propaganda sites for information, you'd clearly see it is a local group that is sponsoring the effort - nothing to do with Washington.QuakerOats;1779770 wrote:Yeah, can't believe anything the locals say; there are obviously bureaucrats in Washington D.C. that know more.
Gimme a break.
Who said anything about terrorist moles? Several of the protesters at the Missoula courthouse, that's who.QuakerOats;1779771 wrote:Who said anything about terrorist moles? You keep making up shit to justify a failed position. Crime is up and working families are burdened; can't we deal in that reality as we try to fix the problem. Apparently not, it always comes back to race, prejudice, and other stuff that has nothing to do with the PROBLEMS.
And maybe you should head over to Sweden so you can expand your horizons a bit; the scene isn't playing out how you like to frame it.
Isn't that basically how Trump negotiates?QuakerOats;1779941 wrote:A $1.7B SETTLEMENT PAID TO IRAN
You are just now reading that? Kinda slow to the party .QuakerOats;1779941 wrote:A $1.7B SETTLEMENT PAID TO IRAN — described by some Republicans as a ‘ransom’ tied to last month’s release of five American prisoners — should be fully explained by Secretary of State John Kerry, says the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee.
nice
So basically it was like the Bowe Bergdahl exchange?ptown_trojans_1;1779948 wrote:
Basically, we were going to have to pay them eventually
Didn't know we owed the Taliban money from before 1979.gut;1779951 wrote:So basically it was like the Bowe Bergdahl exchange?
No, I meant we were going to release those prisoners eventually anyway, right? Same logic and justification, right?ptown_trojans_1;1779952 wrote:Didn't know we owed the Taliban money from before 1979.
Yeah, we were going to pay the Iranians eventually, had to, and it made sense to get the ball rolling now over the past year to do that. Before there were no official channels and the Iranians wanted way more, like $3B. So, we met in the middle and settled the debt. The administration all took the money legally from a Treasury account for these exact things.gut;1779954 wrote:No, I meant we were going to release those prisoners eventually anyway, right? Same logic and justification, right?
Do you get paid for being such an apologist?ptown_trojans_1;1779956 wrote:Yeah, we were going to pay the Iranians eventually, had to, and it made sense to get the ball rolling now over the past year to do that. Before there were no official channels and the Iranians wanted way more, like $3B. So, we met in the middle and settled the debt. The administration all took the money legally from a Treasury account for these exact things.
Look, I hate it too. The Iranians are a bad regime, but this was a legit gripe by them and makes sense to do it now to avoid paying even more down the road.
The debt goes back to the Shah years really.
Not enough. :laugh:like_that;1779983 wrote:Do you get paid for being such an apologist?
ptown_trojans_1;1779948 wrote:You are just now reading that? Kinda slow to the party .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/lost-amid-the-us-iran-news-17b-deal-now-raising-questions/2016/01/22/163c40de-c13b-11e5-98c8-7fab78677d51_story.html
From everything I have read, it dates back to funds frozen from 1979 that the U.S. owed to Iran from previous sales.
Basically, we were going to have to pay them eventually, that's how it works.
Since the past year has really been the only time the U.S. and Iran has sat down, only made sense it was brought up.
You want to be mad, fine, but that is the nature of diplomacy.
All you do is make generalizations about "liberals" with zero suggestions about how to make things right. If you're so smart, what exactly would you do at the diplomacy table?QuakerOats;1780088 wrote:No longer get mad; simply sit here in absolute amazement of liberal think and the utter ineptness of the obama regime.
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1780108 wrote:If you're so smart, what exactly would you do at the diplomacy table?