Indeed it was not needed at all to say that the German and French actions in the wake of the Paris attacks are not cowardly.
It was indeed a very stupid request from you.
And once again: since you are not taking back your straw men, you are also then a going to the level of becoming a certified stinky liar too.
No, what I’ll be happy to see is Democrats get punished for their lack of self awareness and moral scolding. Assuming they don’t just go full coward while you carry water for them.
Anyway, here’s a pretty good summary of the actual anti-refugee point of view if anyone cares. But if you want to stick t the moral preening, that works too:
http://www.nationalreview.com/syrian-refugees-arent-1939s-jews?bjBh5LpEs2W2Hqxy.01
:rolleyes:
As you are only a liar and a coward, one should not mind you, but for everyone else I only have to note here that you are wishing only evil on others. To demand that only punishment will come for doing the right thing is just what prohibitionists claimed when the Democrats wanted to end prohibition.
BTW The Republicans did win early with fear indeed, making everyone fear Al Smith and the anti-prohibitionists.
Al Smith was defeated by Hoover, but Al Smith did not have to wait a lot to see the Republicans become a minority party for decades thanks to many stupid ideas and demands to be scared of liquor or immigrants (and science and health care among many other thongs)
Anheuser Bush, himself demonized during WWI for his German ancestry, gave a case of beer to Al Smith after Roosevelt trounced the Republicans and Prohibition ended.
The “anti-refugee point of view”? That needs work, like “anti abortion” gets to be “pro-life”, or “religious freedom” for being a rude snot. Too crude, like nude shots of Ernest Borgnine. Needs a negligee, a gauzy wisp draped over. Something something Liberty, you know the drill.
And, of course, the National Review. I’m gonna take a wild guess here, and guess they tired to shoe horn national sovereignty into it…
You actually hope for a terrorist attack in the US so you can blame it on Obama and the Democratic Party, dontcha? It’s just us here, you can be honest.
I’ve never liked euphemisms. I’ll leave the branding to the professionals.
No, I hope for what I said: that Democrats get punished by Americans for morally scolding the voters. ALthough I suspect that except for Obama, who doesn’t have to stand for reelection, most Democrats will turn full coward once they fully absorb just how badly this issue goes against them.
adaher, read this and then keep telling us about the great danger we’re in.
Not what I see, and once again the universe goes against your say so’s just to spite you.
It has to be said too, you are only using a fig leaf, own your bigotry and fear adaher. I was not born yesterday and liars like you always want to hide behind the idea that they are carrying water for bigots and cowards just because some mean Democrat scolded them. Not falling for that one.
Well, there’s at least one thing we haven’t outsourced.
Sorry, I’ll let myself out.
The article starts off with a deception( that governors can’t impede refugee resettement) and continues with a bigger deception, counting Cuban refugees and Haitian refugees and Nicaraguan refugees.
By contrast, this is a group that contains significant numbers of people who already support ISIS:
http://english.dohainstitute.org/content/6a355a64-5237-4d7a-b957-87f6b1ceba9b
And ISIS people have been caught trying to infiltrate as refugees in Turkey and Honduras.
Denying that this group is fleeing Syria because they do not want to support what ISIS does and they were also targets of ISIS is not helping remove your lying and coward efforts.
The refugees are fleeing the war, not ISIS specifically. Many will be Assad loyalists, many ISIS loyalists, many non-political, and perhaps maybe three of them support the crack six-person militia we’ve funded.
Explain how the governors can legally block refugees.
Cite for the Cuban, etc?
The word used in the article is “impede”. No, they cannot block refugees, but they are not lawfully required to help settle them. The federal government does not have the resources to settle very many refugees on its own, so a refusal to help is a fairly serious impediment to refugee resettlement.
This point of yours is also a dumb point. As we are for all practical reasons in bed with Assad now, via Russia, (I remember a classic old cartoon of Stalin falling over the bed of the allies in WWII)
We are doing now what I saw as it was needed in the past, we will have to become allies of very unsavory guys when we have bigger fish to fry, later we can contain and take care of Dictators.
Just like all the Republicans who have admitted how wrong they were about Ebola.
Oh, wait…
Nothing was said about ISIS in the article, only that hey were Syrian.
And I still want a cite on the Cuban and other refugees.
Why don’t you cite that the article says 750,000 Muslim refugees? It doesn’t. They were referring to the entire refugee population.