Too bad there is statutory authority for this, and this is an area fully occupied by the federal government. Our founders wrote the supremacy clause for a reason. Tough shit for these grandstanding governors.
Ot: Ricketts say no to refugees
- Thread starter sthusker
- Start date
- Status
And people who are pro-life hate women and people who want to privatize social security hate old people. We get it.
It's not legal. All other states have enacted concurrent legislation criminalizing marijuana under state law IN ADDITION TO the federal laws. Washington and Colorado have decided to legalize marijuana under state law despite the fact that it remains illegal under federal law. The federal government could, at any time, raid every dispensary in Colorado despite Colorado's laws. Rather than doing so, however, the federal government has made the decision to monitor the situation and devote its limited resources elsewhere.
Translation: Obama loves the chronic.
The government's job- first and foremost- is to protect it's citizens. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they didn't think there would be abortion or gay marriage either. Things change. So the old rule about taking refugees can change. In WWII we put Japanese in interment camps. I'm not saying we should do that again but in times of danger you need to suspend some things that are normally accepted. This is one of those times. No refugees.
So, in other words, the values we supposedly hold near and dear to our hearts go out the window the second we get scared. We're Americans and Nebraskans--why are we acting like scared little wimps? Aren't we better than that?
So the only reason anyone can have for not wanting thousands of potential terrorist and terrorist sympathizers brought to the United States is because we're scared? I can just as easily say, and more rightly, that we're Americans and Nebraskans, we're smarter than that! Why are we letting an individual that the majority of us didn't even vote for force us to do something we know is stupid!
SMH...get out of here with that crap.
That's because he is misinformed.
The US Intelligence Community estimating that nearly quarter of Muslims are radical is news to me, and I've been in the Community for 12 years.
I'm also not surprised that jeans is throwing out stuff about the refugee makeup and seeing what sticks. Facts are running thin 'round here.
I don't care if folks do or don't want the refugees here, but making decisions based on talking points or disregarding the facts at hand, is somewhat troubling.
It does seem like the Feds will have the final say, because its statutory law.
The govt has a mechanism for this. Its called a declaration of war. Abe didn't suspend Habeas Corpus because he had a case of the Mondays.
The US hasn't been at war since WWII officially. The GOP Congress could fix this by declaring war (they don't need Obama's approval) but they also don't have a mechanism to deploy troops if Obama doesn't play ball. He's the CINC. They could then impeach him if he doesn't.
Oh, is that it? Here's a list of things to increase your chance of surviving tomorrow. Watch out for those thyroid medications and your family doctor!
That statement doesn't read as very welcoming to me. If background checks and proper credentials are always part of the process, what need for a statement demanding them (beyond placating the fear of the masses)?
I'm not sure I understand the question? They're refugees fleeing ISIS (at least in part).
I didn't say anything about women or old people...
You're right, it was overly flippant. Let me try again.
IMO, America should lead the way in providing for refugees of humanitarian crises around the globe. It would be a much better use of our time, resources, and status as a world hegemon than fighting the "war on terror" and contributing to said crises. People have let fear of the astronomically low chances of dying in a terrorist attack cloud their judgment, their reason, and their values. It isn't about skin color (for most people), but it is about nationality and religion for a whole lot of Nebraskans-- including, I would guess, the esteemed Mr. Ricketts.
That's the dirty little secret Obama/Kerry/Clinton don't want you to know about. In order to vet people you need accurate national record keeping and access to those records. Those two things are not available to the nations taking these people in.
And even if they were the USA doesn't have the resources to vet the people sneaking over the southern border, and they sure as heck don't have the man-power or expertise to vet the thousands Obama wants to take in from terrorist nations.
The USA still hasn't fully recovered from the great recession but Obama wants us to save all the suffering people in the world. Lemme ask you this: If you're floating in a full life-boat that is designed to hold 10 people, and then 15 people climb into your life-boat. Btw, 15 people who don't even really want to be in your life-boat in the first place. Well what happens? It capsizes, and instead of saving 15 people you drown 25.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Cute. I hope that nothing happens, and your hugs save your family if it does.Oh, is that it? Here's a list of things to increase your chance of surviving tomorrow. Watch out for those thyroid medications and your family doctor!
Where did I advocate hugs?
Hunting down terrorists is pretty damn fun dude. You should try it sometime.
Well there is only a few million refugees. And what could go wrong?
Obama state department vetting process:
Q: "Do you promise on the body of your dead son who you strapped a bomb-vest to that you're not a terrorist?"
T: "I don't speak your language or respect your customs, but if it will get me closer to Washington D.C., sure you bet. I hate Obama. Sorry, Freudian slip. I hate Osama. Now can I come in and jump on the welfare gravy train and start making plans to . . . not kill the infidels?"
Q: "Of course you can come in. By the way there was no right or wrong to that question. That would be racist."
T: "Thank you. By the way, can you tell me the date of the next Boston Marathon? I like to keep in shape."
Last edited:
It's a Catch-22. Turning away refugees is only going to make them hate America, and make them more likely to be recruited by a group like ISIS. This is a lose-lose situation no matter what.
Someday I hope to see our country get to the point where we do the right thing and not just the left vs right thing.
That's the tricky thing, right? What's the right thing? There are a lot of people in this thread who are convinced they know the right thing, and it's no surprise that it's split along partisan lines (like most other things in the country). I'm certainly not immune-- I said something pretty silly earlier, instead of articulating my thoughts on the matter.
You know what's ironic. There are lots of Coptic Christians we could take in. People who might actually be able to assimilate and be grateful for our actions. People who would want to be here. But are we gonna show compassion to those types? Nope, the memo clearly states: TAKE IN MUSLIMS. (and give them voter registration cards printed in Spanish)
The Progressive Platform (a.k.a the anarchist platform)
Rule 1) Ignore and/or spit on any law you disagree with.
Rule 2) Invite people to your party who don't want to be there and who might kill you.
Rule 3) Repeat 1 and 2 until you've destroyed an accomplishment that took 4 million years to achieve, called civil society.
Rule 1) Ignore and/or spit on any law you disagree with.
Rule 2) Invite people to your party who don't want to be there and who might kill you.
Rule 3) Repeat 1 and 2 until you've destroyed an accomplishment that took 4 million years to achieve, called civil society.
Question for the progressives.
Thousands of people travel from the USA (also other places like Europe) to join ISIS (taliban - al queda - ISIL - HAMAS - whatever the psychopath group du jour is). So people with USA passports (possibly people you know?) want to join the violent crazies.
Should Obama's state department revoke their passport so they can't come back in the country?
Thousands of people travel from the USA (also other places like Europe) to join ISIS (taliban - al queda - ISIL - HAMAS - whatever the psychopath group du jour is). So people with USA passports (possibly people you know?) want to join the violent crazies.
Should Obama's state department revoke their passport so they can't come back in the country?
Do you mean the article that says an attack on one member is an attack on all members, and France can ask for help including troops? Not a very obscure one if that's the question, it's really the backbone of NATO.
France has already asked for our help, logistics and targeting for their bombing of ISIS, and we gave it to them.
If we are pulled into Iraq again and it's the full weight of NATO, that would certainly be a far better situation than the coalition we tried to pull together for the 2003 invasion where only 4 countries sent troops (including us).
You guys need to listen to this guy. Just yesterday he and I were having lunch and he reminded me that ISIS is the JV team.
Are you saying anything in my post was not factual? Believe what you want, but don't base it on falsehoods.
I agree with Ricketts, but why stop with Syrians? I hope he's going to put up a wall to keep out the killers with military backgrounds, because many mass murderers often have that on their record, so their out! Everyone who has been bullied or can't relate to the opposite sex, certainly can't be trusted, just look at their facebook accounts. In fact he better just keep out 18 - 40 year old, white males to save the state. King Obama is handing these terrorists AK47s at county gun shows cuz the founding fathers back in 1776 said it was a great idea and no one tries to stop him. Mmmm wait, that sounds incorrect, but why worry about facts, lets follow Rush and just use emotion. Robert Hawkins, gunned down 9 victims in Omaha and he was from Nebraska! Should we just start self-deporting now?
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Portal players taken. 15 and counting. 1st in Big 10. 6th Nationally
- Latest: HuskerAlum92
