Denouncing the ban is not remotely the same as :"support unvetted refugees coming here in mass numbers" Don't care what the process is in other countries, you were talking about people saying there should be none here. Who are those people? I never said anything about our current vetting process. You said there are Americans who support allowing in mass numbers of refugees with no vetting at all. Who are those Americans? Schumer is a moron but even she didn't say anything like that. A comma separates things. I am not talking about your comments on sanctuary. I am asking who these people are - "AMERICANS in this very country who don't care about securing our borders, who support unvetted refugees coming here in mass numbers". That statement has nothing to do with sanctuary cities. It stands on it's own and I am merely asking you to name the people you are talking about. Even a couple of them would do. I have not heard even one single person anywhere say we should have no vetting, you are saying you have, so...who said it? I'm far from lost, I am asking one simple question. You are refusing to answer it. I am guessing you're having no luck on google but that also has nothing to do with my question...
What's the difference between insisting on the admittance of unvetted refugees and insisting on the admittance of refugees that cannot be vetted? There is no semi-vetting, you either vet someone or you don't.
Of course there is semi-vetting - it's when they're not vetted as thoroughly as you'd like. It's not an on off switch kind of thing...
Where the fuck is idjit? These posts are all TL;DR and make me feel like throwing uppercuts at the whole damn lot of you.
Hey, fuck you Biggie, don't you have a hunter to go smoosh? Get up from my nap and you bitches have written a fucking Danielle Steele novel here.
Indeed. I've often wondered how effective the US general public would be at overthrowing the government if it really came down to it. I mean there's so many ancillary factors involved, not the least of which would our military actually carry out orders to turn their guns on their own people. But would sheer numbers of civilian combatants, some with semi-automatic small arms be enough to overtake the Star Trek level shit the government has at their disposal. This is of course worst case scenario situation here.....but then, that's why the second amendment was put there in the first place.
http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2017/05/...-to-manchesterbombing-has-pc-heads-exploding/ Holy crap, Morissey said that?