Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We could take some of them here. I just had to look it up, but Los Angeles already has 500,000 Muslims. They seem to fit in just fine with everything else we have here.
Obama has bombed Syria, sadly with no results except to kill Syrians. He has also done the same in Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and other points of interest in the Middle East. It's too much of a stretch to believe that angry relatives of the dead will be headed our way if this insane plan comes to pass.
Let's not forget that France was partners with us in the misguided plan to obliterate Libya, and they accept refuges. Look where they are not. 3 terrorist attacks in the last year or so. Many dead.
Thankfully the voters have a choice on this in 2016. Vote to continue this insane foreign policy, i.e. bomb countries then take in 100s of thousand of bombing survivors, or Vote to end this madness.
All Muslim 'refuges' shall seek Asylum in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, we do not wish a people who hates us and desire back stab us and destroy from within.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was the secular bully who kept Iran freaked out and terrorists out of the Mideast. The American and British invasion destroyed the tenuous stability that his presence supplied, and as a result Iraq fell apart in religious civil war and became a breeding ground for terrorists and it has spread to Syria. The U.S. removed the single secular Muslim regime in the Mideast, the one single power whose goal was to keep a lid on sectarian violence.
The U.S. should take all the Syrian refugees, and it might as well let ISIS set up a diplomatic mission on the Bush ranch too.
This wretched mess got started because of America and Britain's pointless military adventurism, and both those countries should be paying a big price for what they have unleashed.
Obama will allow in 185,000 Syrian refugees into American by 2017. Hillary supports this.
The director of our National Intelligence believes ISIS is trying to infiltrate the Syrian Refugees. However, the Obama administration says that they will screen the Syrian refugees with questions to prevent terrorists from entering.
Alternatively, we could send food and medical supplies to Syrian refugees and/or create a safe zone in Syria for them.
quick,someone send obama a copy of the trojan wars and underline the part about the big wooden horse!
The statue was dedicated in 1886, when the country was but 100 years old. Those words apply more to those who came here legally than for crazed Muslim refuges and border hopping illegals, neither having anything to offer us. We have run out of employment and our resources are tapped. More trash people aren't welcome.
First federal legislation restricting immigration was the 1882, to exclude the Chinese. Up to then, if you could make it here, the door was open. Most could not afford the trip. Many who came (up to half), came as indentured servants, either by choice (they could not afford the trip) or force (via kidnapping). Convicts were often shipped across the Atlantic as indentured servants from England.
Most immigrants came to America seeking economic opportunities.
Obama has bombed Syria, sadly with no results except to kill Syrians. He has also done the same in Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and other points of interest in the Middle East. It's too much of a stretch to believe that angry relatives of the dead will be headed our way if this insane plan comes to pass.
Let's not forget that France was partners with us in the misguided plan to obliterate Libya, and they accept refuges. Look where they are not. 3 terrorist attacks in the last year or so. Many dead.
Thankfully the voters have a choice on this in 2016. Vote to continue this insane foreign policy, i.e. bomb countries then take in 100s of thousand of bombing survivors, or Vote to end this madness.
Which of those running for the White House, would do anything different?
Not Trump, not Hilliary, not Christie, not Bush, not Carson. So which one?
(and not Romney or McCain)
The problems in the Middle East have been growing for some time now. Until the rest of the world starts to understand what is driving the problem, how can anybody come up with a solution to it. There are multiple millions of people living in an area of the earth where they don't have access to some basics, such as food. That area of the world is fast approaching a reality that it can no longer support life. The people trying to live there .... have nothing to lose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
