Hey nitwit, read this link post #41. You're talking about Sheriff Joe not me. I kindfully accept your apology.
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1079270&page=2&highlight=trump+executive+order
Hey nitwit, read this link post #41. You're talking about Sheriff Joe not me. I kindfully accept your apology.
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1079270&page=2&highlight=trump+executive+order
Some racist dudes shoots someone.... OK. Whats the average racist population amongst whites in this country? Ill be generous, lets say 10% of whites are stone cold racists. How many of them are willing to kill someone over it? Obviously the odds are very small. Now we all know blacks kill way more white than whites kill blacks but i wont even go there to make my point. My point is what youre insinuating. If someone who is Islamic kills someone its usually more than 1 and its religiously motivated. Its about upsetting the herd. A lone wolf racist doesnt upset the herd, hell we dont even hear aout the blacks on white race crimes/murders. But we all know they exist. They're somewhat isolated. If someone who follows Islam commits a murder it catches our attention because its usually more than 1 and its Islam who inherently is running a proxy war versus the west. Racism wont spread like a wildfire because its irrational. Religion on the other hand, has the opposite effect. It does spread. They're is much more radical islam sympathizers than racists and that is why its eyebrow-raising.
I clearly stated I did just that in the very post you quoted, I clearly stated why I did just that in that very same post, and I clearly pointed out why I think there's a yuuuuuge difference, as in no comparison
my guess is you must not have read the post
now if racist Americans start killing hundreds of illegals every year AND Trump does nothing about it, then you have a case. Neither will happen, but in order for your analogy to be correct, both must happen
Rep. Keith Ellison @keithellison
[h=1]Toxic rhetoric from political leaders & scapegoating immigrants always leads to real violence.My statement on the shooting in Kansas City: [/h]
[h=1]Toxic rhetoric from political leaders & scapegoating immigrants always leads to real violence.My statement on the shooting in Kansas City: [/h]
"punish your enemies", Barrack Obama
talking to his base, talking about the selfish, greedy, racist white man like me
just stop, I for one couldn't care less what career lying fucking idiot politicians have to say, I accept them for what they are
talking to his base, talking about the selfish, greedy, racist white man like me
just stop, I for one couldn't care less what career lying fucking idiot politicians have to say, I accept them for what they are
Rep. Keith Ellison @keithellison
Toxic rhetoric from political leaders & scapegoating immigrants always leads to real violence.My statement on the shooting in Kansas City:
Neighbor: Kansas bar shooting suspect a 'drunken mess,' not political
He said in the past year, Purinton bounced from one menial job to the next and was sometimes drunk by mid-morning. But in the 15 years he's lived across the street from Purinton in Olathe, Berthelsen said he's never heard him make a racist remark or talk politics. He said he doesn't believe the shooting stemmed from hatred, and that it likely resulted from Purinton's physical and mental deterioration.
:nohead:
What is so funny about all this is that Keith Ellison would never, ever, make a statement about a Trump supporter getting beaten for their political views.
When these things happened, Where was Keith Ellison?
Where was the DNC?
Why isn’t the “hateful rhetoric” coming from Democratic politicians responsible for these incidents?
Trump supporter, 15, beaten during Rockville protest
'Donald Trump supporter' violently attacked on video at US airport immigration crackdown protest
Trump supporter describes attack by Portland protesters
Man Arrested For Assaulting Trump Supporter Near UC Berkeley Campus
4 ARRESTED IN WEST SIDE BEATING OF TRUMP SUPPORTER
Two Men Arrested for Attacking Donald Trump Supporter in Meriden
Where was the DNC?
Why isn’t the “hateful rhetoric” coming from Democratic politicians responsible for these incidents?
Trump supporter, 15, beaten during Rockville protest
'Donald Trump supporter' violently attacked on video at US airport immigration crackdown protest
Trump supporter describes attack by Portland protesters
Man Arrested For Assaulting Trump Supporter Near UC Berkeley Campus
4 ARRESTED IN WEST SIDE BEATING OF TRUMP SUPPORTER
Two Men Arrested for Attacking Donald Trump Supporter in Meriden
and they encourage "dissent", which are really riots that destroy property and injure people and are full of HATE
you can't make shit this stupid up
This would make as much sense as the shooter claiming he's really not racist cause he shot just 2 minorities and not all of them. Or the KKK claiming they're not really a hate group cause they only lynched a few Southern blacks and not all of them. Do you understand how dumb you sound?
Funny that Con scum were bitching and moaning that Egypt was a ISIS stronghold (all because of Obama) yet no ban there. Bitching and moaning that Saudi Arabia is a huge supporter of terrorism, strong beliefs that led to them blocking arms sales to them and overriding Obama's veto of the 911 Bill, yet no ban there either. Gee I wonder why.... oh yeah the Orangutan-in-Chief just happens to have business ties in both countries. What a MORON.
<article class="column at8-col8 at12-col11 at16-col15" id="article-contents" maincontentofpage="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 10px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 100%; float: left; min-height: 1px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; width: 100% !important; background-position: 0px 0px;"><header class="article_header module" style="margin: 0px 10px 6px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; width: auto; position: relative; background-position: 0px 0px;">
Donald Trump Rejects Intelligence Report on Travel Ban
Tension with intelligence officials rises as Homeland Security contradicts White House on terror
</header>
A protest in San Francisco against the Trump administration’s order on immigration. A Homeland Security report is the latest volley in a struggle between intelligence officials and the administration. PHOTO: ELIJAH NOUVELAGE/GETTY IMAGES
By SHANE HARRIS
<time class="timestamp" style="margin: 0px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 13px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Whitney SSm', sans-serif; display: block; line-height: 2.2rem; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); background-position: 0px 0px;">Feb. 24, 2017 8:53 p.m. ET</time>2064 COMMENTS
An intelligence report by the Department of Homeland Security contradicts the White House’s assertion that immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries pose a particular risk of being terroristsand should be blocked from entering the U.S.
The report is the latest volley in a struggle between intelligence officials and the Trump administration that has rippled across several agencies. Some officials have critiqued administration policies, while the president and senior members of his staff have accused officials of leaking information to undermine his administration and the legitimacy of his election.
The report, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, came from Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. It said that its staff “assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.” The White House on Friday dismissed it as politically motivated and poorly researched.
<iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/2/twitter.wsj.com/us_national_story_2" title="3rd party ad content" name="google_ads_iframe_/2/twitter.wsj.com/us_national_story_2" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: bottom; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); display: block;"></iframe>
The compilation and disclosure of an intelligence report so directly at odds with top White House priorities marks an unusually sharp rupture between the administration and career public servants. It also underscores the difficulty President Donald Trump has had in converting his confrontational and bombastic campaign rhetoric into public policy.
The Trump administration is seeking to enforce an executive order blocking immigrants from the seven countries, which it has portrayed as based on nationality and security factors, and not religion. Mr. Trump is expected to issue a new order next week after federal courts blocked his first attempt to temporarily halt immigration and prohibit refugees from entering the country.
The DHS report was prepared in response to the White House request for intelligence assessments of terrorist threats posed by migration. Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the Homeland Security report said it was compiled on short notice, but that it relied on information that analysts routinely collect and examine in order to guide counterterrorism policies. The report was shared with agencies outside DHS.
Trump administration officials said the assessment ignored available information that supports the immigration ban and the report they requested has yet to be presented.
“The president asked for an intelligence assessment. This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for,” a senior administration official said. The official said intelligence is already available on the countries included in Mr. Trump’s ban and just needs to be compiled.
“The intelligence community is combining resources to put together a comprehensive report using all available sources which is driven by data and intelligence and not politics," said White House spokesman Michael Short.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security also took issue with the quality of the report, describing it as “commentary” based on public sources rather than “an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing.”
“It is clear on its face that it is an incomplete product that fails to find evidence of terrorism by simply refusing to look at all the available evidence,” said Gillian M. Christensen, the department’s acting press secretary.
“Any suggestion by opponents of the president’s policies that senior [homeland security] intelligence officials would politicize this process or a report’s final conclusions is absurd and not factually accurate. The dispute with this product was over sources and quality, not politics,” Ms. Christensen said.
It was not the first time this week that DHS officials were at odds with White House policies and statements. On Thursday, DHS Secretary John Kelly, on a trip to Mexico, assured officials there that the U.S. would not undertake “mass deportations” of illegal immigrants and that the U.S. military would not play a role in immigration enforcement.
The reassurance on military involvement apparently contradicted a statement by Mr. Trump earlier that day, in which he described enforcement as a “military operation.” White House officials later clarified that Mr. Trump was referring to “military precision,” not actual military actions.
The new DHS report, which is not classified, states that its findings are based on public statistics and reports from the Department of Justice and the State Department as well as an annual report on global threats produced by U.S. intelligence agencies. CNN reported Thursday that the intelligence office had compiled a report that was at odds with the administration’s views.
Mr. Trump has defended the immigration ban, noting that the seven countries were identified by the Obama administration as “sources of terror,” and that two of them, Iraq and Syria, are home bases to members of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, who conceivably could enter the U.S. posing as immigrants or refugees.
But the Homeland Security report found that in the past six years, foreign-born people in the United States who were “inspired” to participate in terrorist acts came from 26 different countries.
<iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/2/twitter.wsj.com/us_national_story_m2_1" title="3rd party ad content" name="google_ads_iframe_/2/twitter.wsj.com/us_national_story_m2_1" width="300" height="250" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: bottom; background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245); display: block;"></iframe>
In all, analysts found 82 individuals who were “primarily” based in the U.S. who had either died trying to engage in terrorism or were convicted on charges. Of those, “slightly more than half” were native born U.S. citizens, the report found.
Only two of the seven countries targeted by Mr. Trump—Iraq and Somalia—are among the top origins countries for foreign-born individuals who engaged in terrorism in the United States, the report found. Those countries, in order, are Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq and Uzbekistan.
The findings track similar studies by think tanks and news organization. The Wall Street Journal in January found that of 180 people charged with jihadist terrorism-related crimes or who died before being charged, 11 were identified as being from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Sudan or Somalia, the countries specified in Mr. Trump’s order. No Americans were killed in any of the attacks by those 11 individuals.
The DHS report found that countries targeted in Mr. Trump’s immigration order already accounted for a small portion of total visas issued in the fiscal year 2015, with no country accounting for more than 7% of visas granted in the Middle East, North Africa or Sub Saharan Africa, the report found. The country accounting for the largest percentage of visas issued in those regions was Iran, the report found, which the U.S. designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984.
</article>
In all, analysts found 82 individuals who were “primarily” based in the U.S. who had either died trying to engage in terrorism or were convicted on charges. Of those, “slightly more than half” were native born U.S. citizens, the report found.
Only two of the seven countries targeted by Mr. Trump—Iraq and Somalia—are among the top origins countries for foreign-born individuals who engaged in terrorism in the United States, the report found. Those countries, in order, are Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq and Uzbekistan.
open borders baby
does anyone know where they want to draw the line?
do we even need passports anymore? why?
do we really need customs agents? just let them off the planes and let them walk in
why bother with green cards? and the application process? just let them all in baby
seriously, where do modern day liberals want to draw the line? anyone who advocates NO BORDER CONTROL please do elaborate as to what security measures you do support, and then tell us why we should have any security measures what so ever if we can't have a security on our Mexican border
TIA
does anyone know where they want to draw the line?
do we even need passports anymore? why?
do we really need customs agents? just let them off the planes and let them walk in
why bother with green cards? and the application process? just let them all in baby
seriously, where do modern day liberals want to draw the line? anyone who advocates NO BORDER CONTROL please do elaborate as to what security measures you do support, and then tell us why we should have any security measures what so ever if we can't have a security on our Mexican border
TIA
