2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#4,827
#4,827
hog88 said:
Still does not support any of your claims of who was on the terror watch list 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

The number we were going for wasn't exactly ten years. The point was the two of you were trying to claim that conservatives being on the list was a recent phenomenon. It's not.
 
#4,828
#4,828
Yes, this is exactly why border security is a huge ****ing deal during this election whether Hillary wants to admit it or not. Additionally, why sanctuary cities are playing Russian Roulette with their citizens:

Afghan national tied to Taliban, attack plot smuggled into US | Fox News

An Afghan national with ties to the Taliban — and a plot to carry out a terror attack somewhere in North America — was caught last fall after being smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico, an incident sure to further inflame the debate over national security risks at the border.

The Afghan national’s alleged terror ties were not initially flagged in a terror database – and as a result, not initially reported – when the incident first came to light last November, according to Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who obtained Homeland Security documents on the incident. It was only later that U.S. officials discovered his associations.

Hunter told Fox News on Friday that the database disconnect represents a “monumental failure.”

“We don’t know who’s coming into the U.S. and what they’re bringing with them,” he told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “It is as bad as it seems.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,829
#4,829
Sin City Vol said:
This story was awful, this lady emerged from the woods and attacked them. The mother fought with her and then the 17 year old daughter jumped in while the son grabbed a gun. They said the woman never spoke a word to them and not even when they held her down while waiting for police. The only thing they know about her is she's from Africa....that's just freaky.
Click to expand...

Yea, it is awful. Maybe something wrong upstairs in her head in all seriousness.
 
#4,830
#4,830
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,831
#4,831
Grand Vol said:
I don't ascribe it to 80 million people. But I do think your party needs to start putting the brakes on this kind of behavior and disavowing it. Just like this nonsense:

San Jose protesters attack Trump supporters with punches, eggs | Fox News



Exactly why is he putting this all on Trump? For real? Can't put any blame on the protesters at all can he?

And there only was a "dangerous and explosive" situation because he and the police allowed it to get that way.

Your party and it's followers are doing more to ensure a President Trump than the GOP ever dreamed of. As UTC said, it's a sympathy boost. But I'll go one step further and say it's going to be an anger boost. You think moderates and centrists are going to flock to the DNC while this kind of behavior is going on?
Click to expand...

This was an especially good quote:

"At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign," Liccardo said.

Everybody really needs to let that one sink in - thoroughly - very thoroughly.

Liberals/progressives/Democrats (if there are any differences these days) wrap themselves in "free speech" - it's what they use to justify flag burning and violent acts after they managed to have the word "speech" doctored. So it's especially hypocritical to then attempt to deny someone else the right of free speech - someone who actually verbalizes with words.

Imagine the gall in actually stating that someone refrain from speaking or modify his speech because it ignites violence from the opposition - the violence wrapped in the guise of "free speech". At that point, the Democrats should at least have the guts to declare in opposition to the Constitution that free speech is only a right for some and certainly not a right for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4,834
#4,834
AM64 said:
This was an especially good quote:

"At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign," Liccardo said.

Everybody really needs to let that one sink in - thoroughly - very thoroughly.

Liberals/progressives/Democrats (if there are any differences these days) wrap themselves in "free speech" - it's what they use to justify flag burning and violent acts after they managed to have the word "speech" doctored. So it's especially hypocritical to then attempt to deny someone else the right of free speech - someone who actually verbalizes with words.

Imagine the gall in actually stating that someone refrain from speaking or modify his speech because it ignites violence from the opposition - the violence wrapped in the guise of "free speech". At that point, the Democrats should at least have the guts to declare in opposition to the Constitution that free speech is only a right for some and certainly not a right for all.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
#4,836
#4,836
Vol8188 said:
The number we were going for wasn't exactly ten years. The point was the two of you were trying to claim that conservatives being on the list was a recent phenomenon. It's not.
Click to expand...

Racial hate groups are not conservatives. So you are still WRONG!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,838
#4,838
Vol8188 said:
These two things are not the same.
Click to expand...

Why not? Because you see drug trafficking only as a problem because we have laws forbidding it? Then are terrorists undesirable only because we have laws against violence? If a bomb is a method for murder, and illegal drugs can cause the same outcome (just not as messy), then what is the difference?

If the White House has a fence to protect the inhabitants, then why shouldn't we have a border fence to protect inhabitants? Are you admitting Obama's life is worth more than yours?

Remember the old saying that locks keep honest people honest? Well a border fence is conceptually the same. It may not be 100% foolproof, but if someone defeats it's purpose, there isn't much way for him to argue his intrusion was in error. Personally, I'd go cheaper - mines and warning signs - cuts way down on recidivism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,842
#4,842
Vol8188 said:
I'm sorry that you don't understand what terrorism is, but if you kill politicians in the name of political change; you're a terrorist
Click to expand...

So it's OK to blow up buildings, maim and kill people, just as long as you don't include politicians?

For the record some definitions depend highly on who won and how historians choose later to write about events. For example, consider Washington and Lee - and don't forget that the British rule over a colony was an acceptable practice at the time.
 
#4,847
#4,847
Vol8188 said:
Odd, because the fbi labels them as conservatives
Click to expand...

Yeah no kidding. The government also audits conservative groups and lets hate groups such as BLM and those outside Trump rallies to run rampant.

You really believe the FBIwhen they say white sides are a huge problem? Don't be stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top