The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Trump...What did you say?

http://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/th ... -explained" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Comey and other intel chiefs have pointed out the problem.

To quote Comey, you can crosscheck a potential refugee "until the cows come home" and not find anything if that person is not in any database.

And that is the norm.

The fact is that you can't vet most of these purported "refugees" at all because there is, for example, no reliable database of potential Syrian immigrants.

How many of them are really "refugees" anyhow?

Aren't they mostly young males who fled Syria because they didn't want to fight for the integrity of their own country?

What johnforbes is trying to say is that he feels it is right to exclude all Muslims from immigrating, but he just lacks the balls to say it.

If you see your arguments as sufficient to DELAY immigration by 90 days, then they must be sufficient to refuse immigration permanently, since there will not be one iota more information available on most applicants 90 days from now than there is already.

Just say it, johnny. Own your prejudices.
Pretending to be reasonable doesn't change them.

Comey and the other intel folks said what they said.

Because there is no database to check against, it is IMPOSSIBLE to vet Syrian "refugees."

The word "refugee" became a term of art long ago when groups fleeing Vietnam, Somalia, etc rehearsed a tale of woe and the tale was all the same -- my family will be killed blah blah unless you let me sit on welfare in the U.S.

^^^^^ What a pussy. :lol:

Clownkicker wrote:^^^^^ What a pussy. :lol:

Says the biggest liberal whore in the country

".. Because there is no database to check against, it is IMPOSSIBLE to vet Syrian "refugees."

Simple...
Then they DON'T get in ..and told to go somewhere else! :o

Well, sillydaddy said it. He's got no problem with his prejudices and bigotries.

So why is johnforbes too big a pussy to do the same thing?

If you see your arguments as sufficient to DELAY immigration by 90 days, then they must be sufficient to refuse immigration permanently, since there will not be one iota more information available on most applicants 90 days from now than there is already.

Then they should e banned no matter who they are. Do you think the United States would let groups of young German men immigrate if they couldn't verify who they were and what their background was...hell no, so what makes Muslims so special that they HAVE to be let in even if you can't verify who they are?

RealJustme wrote:

If you see your arguments as sufficient to DELAY immigration by 90 days, then they must be sufficient to refuse immigration permanently, since there will not be one iota more information available on most applicants 90 days from now than there is already.

so what makes Muslims so special that they HAVE to be let in even if you can't verify who they are?

So you want to have extreme vetting of Muslims...which essentially gives Christians preferential treatment. And now you claim that Muslims are getting preferential treatment ?

:roll: :o

My bias would be toward successful people from modern nations.

That's the same immigration bias as Canada, Australia, etc.

elklindo69 wrote:

RealJustme wrote:

If you see your arguments as sufficient to DELAY immigration by 90 days, then they must be sufficient to refuse immigration permanently, since there will not be one iota more information available on most applicants 90 days from now than there is already.

so what makes Muslims so special that they HAVE to be let in even if you can't verify who they are?

So you want to have extreme vetting of Muslims...which essentially gives Christians preferential treatment. And now you claim that Muslims are getting preferential treatment ?

:roll: :o

Does anybody else here see that this post makes NO SENSE AT ALL?

In a recent survey, 9 out of 10 dentists reported that Elkin was the dumbest person on the Internet.