Syria immigrants

[Guest]

The vast amount of refugees from Syria is quickly becoming a world wide problem.

In Switzerland...

"The anti-immigration Swiss People's Party (SVP) won the biggest share of the vote in Sunday's national parliamentary election, keeping pressure on Bern to introduce quotas on people moving from the European Union."

Anti-immigration party wins Swiss election in 'slide to the Right' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/11939953/Anti-immigration-party-wins-Swiss-election-in-slide-to-the-Right.html)

In Germany

"Germany's PEGIDA movement holds an anti-migrant rally Monday a year on from its formation, highlighting a European backlash towards a massive influx that has heaped pressure on Chancellor Angela Merkel."



German anti-migrant rally highlights European backlash - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/merkel-heads-turkey-over-migrant-crisis-031355850.html)

In Turkey

"Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Monday his country was "not a concentration camp" and would not host migrants permanently to appease the EU, which wants Turkey to stop the flow of people to Europe."

Turkey 'not concentration camp', won't host migrants permanently: PM - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-not-concentration-camp-wont-host-migrants-permanently-112228697.html)

Some reasons for this....

From Austria

"When you dare to take a look at the border town of Nickelsdorf, population 1,600, you will literally be blown away: uncontrolled, illegal migrants wherever you look, and an orgy of garbage and feces of unparalleled dimensions."


Austrian Town of 1,600 Drowns in Migrant Feces and Garbage (Video) - The Gateway Pundit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/austrian-town-of-1600-drowns-in-migrant-feces-and-garbage-video/)

From Germany

"With the approach of winter, authorities are scrambling to find warm places to stay for the thousands of refugees streaming into Germany every day. In desperation, they have turned to sports halls, youth hostels and empty office buildings."

As winter looms, Germany struggles to find homes for refugees | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/18/us-europe-migrants-germany-winter-insigh-idUSKCN0SC0NY20151018)

And as England tries to cope they come under the criticism of Muslims.

"British Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled a new strategy on Monday to combat extremism, saying the battle was "perhaps the "defining one of this century", but his proposals were condemned by Muslims as demonizing their communities and set to fail."


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/muslims-condemn-britains-plans-combat-extremism-115933511.html

Meanwhile here in the USA....

"WASHINGTON — President Obama, under increasing pressure to demonstrate that the United States is joining European nations in the effort to resettle Syrian refugees, has told his administration to take in at least 10,000 displaced Syrians over the next year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/middleeast/obama-directs-administration-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

I am often criticized for posting links to stories I read about what is happening in the world. Back a few years, I posted link after link on here about what was happening in Syria and was being ignored; about the children being gassed in the streets and the lack of attention to that.

i did not get many, if any, replies to those threads and not many reads.

This is not an indictment of President Obama as so many will read it, but an indictment of the American people along with his attitude.

It is now a world wide problem and if you think it will not affect our borders, not affect what is happening in this world, you are just not paying attention.

You do not have to read any of this stuff, but folks..

The world is on fire, and our leaders, and us, are all caught up in our own shorts as if anyone in the world cares. Syria now joins Iraq, Yemen, Libya and many others have simply ceased to exist as they were.

If you are saying "why should we care", then you are naive. As Israel deals with terrorism on a daily basis which in the future will grow with funds from Iran, you cannot possibly think all of this hate will remain in the middle east.

I am not a war monger, but we need to show a presence in the middle east. We need to show that we really care about what is happening. We, as a country need to be involved before we are forced to get involved.

Sorry, now back to the gossip of the day. I get messages always telling me that I should not be such a worrier but all of this was predicted years ago.

[Guest]

In Hungary

" Hungary said Monday its shutdown of the border with Croatia had put a stop to the influx of migrants and refugees."

Hungary says migrant influx 'stops' - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/hungary-says-migrant-influx-stops-114617312.html)

The world is so much smaller these days.

Do we really think that these problems are not coming our way.

[Guest]

The vast amount of refugees from Syria is quickly becoming a world wide problem.

In Switzerland...

"The anti-immigration Swiss People's Party (SVP) won the biggest share of the vote in Sunday's national parliamentary election, keeping pressure on Bern to introduce quotas on people moving from the European Union."

Anti-immigration party wins Swiss election in 'slide to the Right' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/11939953/Anti-immigration-party-wins-Swiss-election-in-slide-to-the-Right.html)

In Germany

"Germany's PEGIDA movement holds an anti-migrant rally Monday a year on from its formation, highlighting a European backlash towards a massive influx that has heaped pressure on Chancellor Angela Merkel."



German anti-migrant rally highlights European backlash - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/merkel-heads-turkey-over-migrant-crisis-031355850.html)

In Turkey

"Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Monday his country was "not a concentration camp" and would not host migrants permanently to appease the EU, which wants Turkey to stop the flow of people to Europe."

Turkey 'not concentration camp', won't host migrants permanently: PM - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-not-concentration-camp-wont-host-migrants-permanently-112228697.html)

Some reasons for this....

From Austria

"When you dare to take a look at the border town of Nickelsdorf, population 1,600, you will literally be blown away: uncontrolled, illegal migrants wherever you look, and an orgy of garbage and feces of unparalleled dimensions."


Austrian Town of 1,600 Drowns in Migrant Feces and Garbage (Video) - The Gateway Pundit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/austrian-town-of-1600-drowns-in-migrant-feces-and-garbage-video/)

From Germany

"With the approach of winter, authorities are scrambling to find warm places to stay for the thousands of refugees streaming into Germany every day. In desperation, they have turned to sports halls, youth hostels and empty office buildings."

As winter looms, Germany struggles to find homes for refugees | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/18/us-europe-migrants-germany-winter-insigh-idUSKCN0SC0NY20151018)

And as England tries to cope they come under the criticism of Muslims.

"British Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled a new strategy on Monday to combat extremism, saying the battle was "perhaps the "defining one of this century", but his proposals were condemned by Muslims as demonizing their communities and set to fail."


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/muslims-condemn-britains-plans-combat-extremism-115933511.html

Meanwhile here in the USA....

"WASHINGTON — President Obama, under increasing pressure to demonstrate that the United States is joining European nations in the effort to resettle Syrian refugees, has told his administration to take in at least 10,000 displaced Syrians over the next year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/middleeast/obama-directs-administration-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

I am often criticized for posting links to stories I read about what is happening in the world. Back a few years, I posted link after link on here about what was happening in Syria and was being ignored; about the children being gassed in the streets and the lack of attention to that.

i did not get many, if any, replies to those threads and not many reads.

This is not an indictment of President Obama as so many will read it, but an indictment of the American people along with his attitude.

It is now a world wide problem and if you think it will not affect our borders, not affect what is happening in this world, you are just not paying attention.

You do not have to read any of this stuff, but folks..

The world is on fire, and our leaders, and us, are all caught up in our own shorts as if anyone in the world cares. Syria now joins Iraq, Yemen, Libya and many others have simply ceased to exist as they were.

If you are saying "why should we care", then you are naive. As Israel deals with terrorism on a daily basis which in the future will grow with funds from Iran, you cannot possibly think all of this hate will remain in the middle east.

I am not a war monger, but we need to show a presence in the middle east. We need to show that we really care about what is happening. We, as a country need to be involved before we are forced to get involved.

Sorry, now back to the gossip of the day. I get messages always telling me that I should not be such a worrier but all of this was predicted years ago.

How can we, the USA have any credibility in helping other countries when our own house (the USA) is in complete disaray over the same subject.

Wide open borders, no enforcement of immigration laws, cost to house, educate and accomodate the illegals spiraling out of control, etc.

How can we possibly demonstrate we care to the outside world when we stand idly by doing nothing on the same subject here in the USA.

You are confusing a moral outlook with a political outlook. Morally what we are doing is wrong from almost any perspective. It is also illegal.
But since it is politically expediant and agenda supporting....that is all that is needed to make it OK especially for the perpetrator Obama.

And his success is compounded by the silent majority.

No, we have little or nothing to offer other countries other than to take more in here....another politically motivated decision.

Sad to say. Obama gets what he wants and the silent majority gets what it deserves!!!!

[Guest]

The best answer for illegal immigration is guns on the border.

We are kind of like a full lifeboat. We would love to help everyone, but if we allow anymore into the boat, we all perish.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1131876]The best answer for illegal immigration is guns on the border.QUOTE]

Darn straight! If the Border Agency (or volunteers, if the government won't do it) would fire live ammo into some of the illegals crossing our Mexican border and they would stop coming in. Show them with deadly force that we mean business and they will stay away.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1131876]The best answer for illegal immigration is guns on the border.QUOTE]

Darn straight! If the Border Agency (or volunteers, if the government won't do it) would fire live ammo into some of the illegals crossing our Mexican border and they would stop coming in. Show them with deadly force that we mean business and they will stay away.

Why not just post signs and plant mines along the Mexican border. The Cuban government has a mine field between Guantanamo Bay and the rest of Cuba and Obama (and most liberals) obviously doesn't seen to have a problem with it, evidenced by him openly embracing of the Cuban government.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1131916]

Why not just post signs and plant mines along the Mexican border. The Cuban government has a mine field between Guantanamo Bay and the rest of Cuba and Obama (and most liberals) obviously doesn't seen to have a problem with it, evidenced by him openly embracing of the Cuban government.

Why bother with warning signs?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1131951]

Why bother with warning signs?

:thumbup:

[Guest]

In Hungary

" Hungary said Monday its shutdown of the border with Croatia had put a stop to the influx of migrants and refugees."

Hungary says migrant influx 'stops' - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/hungary-says-migrant-influx-stops-114617312.html)

The world is so much smaller these days.

Do we really think that these problems are not coming our way.

Hungry has taken Donald Trump's advise and are building a wall. guess Donald is on to something

[Guest]

This is not an indictment of President Obama as so many will read it, but an indictment of the American people along with his attitude.

Dear guest I copied this one sentence from your very long and informative post.

You say this is not an indictment of Obama.... well it ought to be, Obama ( I can never refer to him as President) created this mess with his "leading from behind" philosophy Rome burns and Nero fiddles er golfs at the cost of $4.4 million of taxpayers money this far.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

This is not an indictment of President Obama as so many will read it, but an indictment of the American people along with his attitude.

Dear guest I copied this one sentence from your very long and informative post.

You say this is not an indictment of Obama.... well it ought to be, Obama ( I can never refer to him as President) created this mess with his "leading from behind" philosophy Rome burns and Nero fiddles er golfs at the cost of $4.4 million of taxpayers money this far.

Personal Best Regards:

You know, as the OP, I recall my thought process when I typed that sentence and very good of you to notice. Let me explain.

I have never forgotten the news stories about chemical and germ warfare being used on children in the streets of Syria, and the images that were available on the internet of these children left lying in the street dead.

That bothered me. I recall starting a thread on here about it. I got ZERO replies about it and very few views. That happened to me more than once.

I come on here and watch so many threads that are simply non starters for me. The threads have nothing to do with anything happening in the world and are simply attacks on other people.

When I typed this, I hoped that people might read the thread and be aware of how bad this is, how terrible it is, how much of a problem it is.

If I began to criticize the President, I was sure that the thread would become simply a thread bashing the President or one of change the subject and defend.

For example; I just responded on a thread that was begun about former President Bush. It was mean spirited; had nothing to do with anything going on in the present tense at all. It deteriorated and at the end, the acolytes of the President were shocked that it turned to race in a way.

I wanted this to be about the problem and it is a problem, but it is not one about immigration as posters are making it.

It is about what you suspect when you question my one sentence.

It is about how my country under our President ignored something that this country would never ever ever ignore in the past. Use of chemical weapons on the citizens of Syria and aimed then at children...innocent children.

What we did was SAY...USE WORDS...to express "regret" and tell them they cannot do that and if they do it again they cross a line.

Well, they did it again and again and again. We did nothing. NOTHING.

Our new big brother, Russia stepped in and said let us take care of it. We said ok and for a bit it was ok. They went back to it again and we ignored it.

This problem could have been averted had we taken some kind of action....I have no idea what and not advocating war....but SOMETHING, as Clinton at least, under the cover of NATO dropped a few bombs on Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing. WE DID NOTHING.

Fact is we never even brought the UN into this ever.

We simply did nothing. NOTHING. Now many children and many adults are suffering that maybe, just maybe we could have saved if we had DONE SOMETHING...ANYTHING.

So, I wanted the subject to be the refugees, not immigration as it is, not Obama as my heart suggested. That is why that sentence, to keep the Obama protectors from taking offense as they do if you mention his name.

We have a problem and if we keep closing our eyes to it, it will just get worse.

[Guest]

You know, as the OP, I recall my thought process when I typed that sentence and very good of you to notice. Let me explain.

I have never forgotten the news stories about chemical and germ warfare being used on children in the streets of Syria, and the images that were available on the internet of these children left lying in the street dead.

That bothered me. I recall starting a thread on here about it. I got ZERO replies about it and very few views. That happened to me more than once.

I come on here and watch so many threads that are simply non starters for me. The threads have nothing to do with anything happening in the world and are simply attacks on other people.

When I typed this, I hoped that people might read the thread and be aware of how bad this is, how terrible it is, how much of a problem it is.

If I began to criticize the President, I was sure that the thread would become simply a thread bashing the President or one of change the subject and defend.

For example; I just responded on a thread that was begun about former President Bush. It was mean spirited; had nothing to do with anything going on in the present tense at all. It deteriorated and at the end, the acolytes of the President were shocked that it turned to race in a way.

I wanted this to be about the problem and it is a problem, but it is not one about immigration as posters are making it.

It is about what you suspect when you question my one sentence.

It is about how my country under our President ignored something that this country would never ever ever ignore in the past. Use of chemical weapons on the citizens of Syria and aimed then at children...innocent children.

What we did was SAY...USE WORDS...to express "regret" and tell them they cannot do that and if they do it again they cross a line.

Well, they did it again and again and again. We did nothing. NOTHING.

Our new big brother, Russia stepped in and said let us take care of it. We said ok and for a bit it was ok. They went back to it again and we ignored it.

This problem could have been averted had we taken some kind of action....I have no idea what and not advocating war....but SOMETHING, as Clinton at least, under the cover of NATO dropped a few bombs on Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing. WE DID NOTHING.

Fact is we never even brought the UN into this ever.

We simply did nothing. NOTHING. Now many children and many adults are suffering that maybe, just maybe we could have saved if we had DONE SOMETHING...ANYTHING.

So, I wanted the subject to be the refugees, not immigration as it is, not Obama as my heart suggested. That is why that sentence, to keep the Obama protectors from taking offense as they do if you mention his name.

We have a problem and if we keep closing our eyes to it, it will just get worse.

I hear what you are saying about the Obama protectors that are outnumbered 10 to 1 on the board. Take a look at all the threads. 95% of them are attacking Obama, Clinton, or the Democratic party. Most of the people don't want to talk politics. All they want to do is belittle each other.

Concerning this post, Obama did go to UN Security Counsel, which past a resolution condemning the use of the chorine barrel bombs. Apparently, chorine wasn't consider a chemical, since it has other uses.
Syria Crosses Obama (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-19/syria-s-chemical-attacks-cross-obama-s-new-red-line)

There is no easy solution in Syria. Given what has happened when dictators are deposed in the Middle East, and Africa, Assad or someone, who is his twin, should rule in Syria with the approval of the free Syrian forces. Then, everyone there with our help should lay waste to ISIS.

Concerning Obama, he was handed a bad situation, and made it worse.

Concerning Assad's initial uses of chemical weapons, I remember hearing fairly recently that the initial plan was a ten hour bombing of Assad's forces by air. That doesn't sound like much of a response. The deal with Russia, US, and Assad was probably a better way to go.

[Guest]

How can we, the USA have any credibility in helping other countries when our own house (the USA) is in complete disaray over the same subject.

Wide open borders, no enforcement of immigration laws, cost to house, educate and accomodate the illegals spiraling out of control, etc.

How can we possibly demonstrate we care to the outside world when we stand idly by doing nothing on the same subject here in the USA.

You are confusing a moral outlook with a political outlook. Morally what we are doing is wrong from almost any perspective. It is also illegal.
But since it is politically expediant and agenda supporting....that is all that is needed to make it OK especially for the perpetrator Obama.

And his success is compounded by the silent majority.

No, we have little or nothing to offer other countries other than to take more in here....another politically motivated decision.

Sad to say. Obama gets what he wants and the silent majority gets what it deserves!!!!

I do respect what the person that started this thread had to say about changing the subject. However, you are wrong about the silent majority. The majority in the US wants a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants as long as they have committed no crimes other than the obvious one.
What Americans Want from Immigration Reform in 2014 | Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/06/10-americans-immigration-reform-2014-survey-panel-call-back)

[Guest]

I hear what you are saying about the Obama protectors that are outnumbered 10 to 1 on the board. Take a look at all the threads. 95% of them are attacking Obama, Clinton, or the Democratic party. Most of the people don't want to talk politics. All they want to do is belittle each other.

Concerning this post, Obama did go to UN Security Counsel, which past a resolution condemning the use of the chorine barrel bombs. Apparently, chorine wasn't consider a chemical, since it has other uses.
Syria*Crosses Obama (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-19/syria-s-chemical-attacks-cross-obama-s-new-red-line)

There is no easy solution in Syria. Given what has happened when dictators are deposed in the Middle East, and Africa, Assad or someone, who is his twin, should rule in Syria with the approval of the free Syrian forces. Then, everyone there with our help should lay waste to ISIS.

Concerning Obama, he was handed a bad situation, and made it worse.

Concerning Assad's initial uses of chemical weapons, I remember hearing fairly recently that the initial plan was a ten hour bombing of Assad's forces by air. That doesn't sound like much of a response. The deal with Russia, US, and Assad was probably a better way to go.

You make some valid points in your post, especially about the posters who just want to belittle anyone and everyone. More on that later.

There is no easy answer in Syria; that is correct, but I think a few years ago, we might have been able to do something. I also suspect and this is simply my opinion, with such violent and obvious huge violations of not only the law but the obvious war crimes being committed (much more than chlorine I assure you) that any President previous would have done something

And go figure, Russia who seems to be our new big brother, convinced us not to bomb and now they are there supporting the criminal.

Obama was not handed this; It never began until 2011. It has nothing to do with Iraq nor ISIS.

And Syria does not exist any longer and will never exist again. As with Yemen, Libya and others it will never exist again as a stand alone country.

I am just embarassed that such gross human rights violation go unnoticed in my country now and we use the excuse of ...its not our business.....that is a cop out.

And yes, I lay it all at the feet of our current President. He has done a few things that I find it hard to forget and forgive....and allow me.

.....When less than half of our country agreed, he forced and he did FORCE on this country an anchor called ACA. He did it with devious methods and did it behind closed doors. This will weigh on this country for many years.

....When just over 25% of our country agreed, he signed onto an agreement with Iran and he did that in a sneaky manner (rushing to the UN after saying our congress could vote) and then manipulating the vote in Congress.

....He will make my country feel guilty over what he calls civil rights failings with one individual black death of a criminal and ignore the henious crimes through out the world (and even those being committed IN this country), even when we could, if we wanted have an impact. And open relations with a country (Cuba) who to this very day harbors murders hiding from our country.

Do not tell me that we have police doing bad things...I know that but use that bully pulpit with a conscience.

Do not tell me that nothing happens in the middle east if Bush did not invade. That is total bunk and is overused in politics, much like the distorted financial mess that Obama inherited. Bush did somethings that were bad for sure but those two things do not apply to current conversation.

It is tough for me to forgive the acts of this President that I mention. There are others but these are really hanging badly over our head. They show total disrespect for me and all american citizens. They are unrelated to Syria, I know, but I mention it because it is so difficult for me to not type angrily because of these things, and i am sorry for jumping around but the entire world is watching !!!

We have suddenly become a country of which I am not proud any longer.

[Guest]

We have suddenly become a country of which I am not proud any longer.

I am still a flag waving, no place on earth like the USA, even on its bad days.

I have zero pride or respect for Obama and most of the elected gang in DC.

And I am not very happy or content with the silent majority's tolerance for the lawlessness and abuse of our constitution!

[Guest]

I am still a flag waving, no place on earth like the USA, even on its bad days.

I have zero pride or respect for Obama and most of the elected gang in DC.

And I am not very happy for the lawlessness and abuse of our constitution!

Yes, those Republiicans and Tea Bag-ers are abusing the Constitution at every turn!

[Guest]

Yes, those Republiicans and Tea Bag-ers are abusing the Constitution at every turn!

Provide an example.

[Guest]

Yes, those Republiicans and Tea Bag-ers are abusing the Constitution at every turn!

Prove it or shut up. NO, just go away. And use spell check if you haven't learned anything in school.

[Guest]

I do respect what the person that started this thread had to say about changing the subject. However, you are wrong about the silent majority. The majority in the US wants a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants as long as they have committed no crimes other than the obvious one.
What Americans Want from Immigration Reform in 2014 | Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/06/10-americans-immigration-reform-2014-survey-panel-call-back)

Nope, not true. It all depends on how you word your polls. The majority do not want the illegals to stay in the U.S. Liberals want open borders, for election purposes only.

Guns on the border will take care of the illegal invasion problem.

[Guest]

My son and daughter-in-law work for the U.N. and deal every day with the atrocities that you describe and more. It is shocking to me that people don't really care about this situation because whether they are Canadian or American, they have won the passport lottery compared to the vast majority of people in the world.

[Guest]

Nope, not true. It all depends on how you word your polls. The majority do not want the illegals to stay in the U.S. Liberals want open borders, for election purposes only.

Guns on the border will take care of the illegal invasion problem.

Please provide an example how anyone could be confused, if they want illegals to stay or be deported. That is a yes or no answer.

The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill that dies in the House. Are you staying that both parties were going against the wishes of citizens? The House didn't put it on the floor, because there was no immediate political advantage for Boehner to do it.

[Guest]

Please provide an example how anyone could be confused, if they want illegals to stay or be deported. That is a yes or no answer.

The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill that dies in the House. Are you staying that both parties were going against the wishes of citizens? The House didn't put it on the floor, because there was no immediate political advantage for Boehner to do it.

This from some one who either does not know anything, or is restricted to what his party tells him to think.

Yes, no reason for Republicans to pass, but as so often happens with party hacks, they have short memories and only work with revisionist history.


"Immigration reform couldn’t pass into law when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress (in 2005-2006). It couldn’t pass when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress (in 2007-2008). It couldn’t pass when Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches (in 2009-2010). And now we officially know this after yesterday: It isn’t going to pass with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in charge of the Senate, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives (2011-2014). Back in 2008 or 2012, Republicans COULD argue that President Obama didn’t make immigration reform a priority, or that he took steps to stymie reform in when he was a senator. (And 2010, in particular, the one REAL moment of the Obama first term when immigration was possible, it was Senate Democratic leaders who weren’t ready to give up the politics of the issue. And the White House didn’t fight.) "

Why Immigration Reform Died in Congress - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/why-immigration-reform-died-congress-n145276)

PLEASE read this. The passing by the senate was yet another ploy to make Republicans look bad; something they have been snookered with since President Obama took office. (Read his reputation in Chicago..he knows how to play the game well).

Point is when you say that, you obviously have no clue. It is the political stuff that was being readied even before the Senate passed it.

[Guest]

You make some valid points in your post, especially about the posters who just want to belittle anyone and everyone. More on that later.

There is no easy answer in Syria; that is correct, but I think a few years ago, we might have been able to do something. I also suspect and this is simply my opinion, with such violent and obvious huge violations of not only the law but the obvious war crimes being committed (much more than chlorine I assure you) that any President previous would have done something

And go figure, Russia who seems to be our new big brother, convinced us not to bomb and now they are there supporting the criminal.

Obama was not handed this; It never began until 2011. It has nothing to do with Iraq nor ISIS.

And Syria does not exist any longer and will never exist again. As with Yemen, Libya and others it will never exist again as a stand alone country.

I am just embarassed that such gross human rights violation go unnoticed in my country now and we use the excuse of ...its not our business.....that is a cop out.

And yes, I lay it all at the feet of our current President. He has done a few things that I find it hard to forget and forgive....and allow me.

.....When less than half of our country agreed, he forced and he did FORCE on this country an anchor called ACA. He did it with devious methods and did it behind closed doors. This will weigh on this country for many years.

....When just over 25% of our country agreed, he signed onto an agreement with Iran and he did that in a sneaky manner (rushing to the UN after saying our congress could vote) and then manipulating the vote in Congress.

....He will make my country feel guilty over what he calls civil rights failings with one individual black death of a criminal and ignore the henious crimes through out the world (and even those being committed IN this country), even when we could, if we wanted have an impact. And open relations with a country (Cuba) who to this very day harbors murders hiding from our country.

Do not tell me that we have police doing bad things...I know that but use that bully pulpit with a conscience.

Do not tell me that nothing happens in the middle east if Bush did not invade. That is total bunk and is overused in politics, much like the distorted financial mess that Obama inherited. Bush did somethings that were bad for sure but those two things do not apply to current conversation.

It is tough for me to forgive the acts of this President that I mention. There are others but these are really hanging badly over our head. They show total disrespect for me and all american citizens. They are unrelated to Syria, I know, but I mention it because it is so difficult for me to not type angrily because of these things, and i am sorry for jumping around but the entire world is watching !!!

We have suddenly become a country of which I am not proud any longer.

President Ford stopped sending military aid, and cut off funding to South Vietnam. South Vietnam fell very quickly after that. US citizens were tired of that war, and we got out. You don't think that here were plenty of war crimes committed during that war. So, American presidents have looked the other way to war crimes.

There was information about what the Nazis were doing to the Jews during World War II. Roosevelt probably knew what was going on. We stayed out of that war until Pearl Harbor. Hell, there were congressional hearings about whether Roosevelt knew the Japanese planned to bomb Pearl Harbor, and allowed it to happen.

I am really not sure were there any congressional hearing after the fact about why we invaded Iraq second time around. If there weren't how do Republicans justify 8 hearing on Benghazi?

Syria did happen on Obama watch, but Iraq did have something to do with it. ISIS started in Iraq, and ISIS sent its troops into Syria to expand their sick view of the world.

You want to place the blame on someone start here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Maliki

We are leading from behind. However, America citizens are/were tired of war. This had to affect some of Obama's thinking in the Middle East. Again, we had to deal with a bad situation, and he made it worse. The next president is going to handed the -hit sandwich, and good luck dealing with it.

I will post the Wikipedia history of ISIS. It is really long.

[Guest]

President Ford stopped sending military aid, and cut off funding to South Vietnam. South Vietnam fell very quickly after that. US citizens were tired of that war, and we got out. You don't think that here were plenty of war crimes committed during that war. So, American presidents have looked the other way to war crimes.

There was information about what the Nazis were doing to the Jews during World War II. Roosevelt probably knew what was going on. We stayed out of that war until Pearl Harbor. Hell, there were congressional hearings about whether Roosevelt knew the Japanese planned to bomb Pearl Harbor, and allowed it to happen.

I am really not sure were there any congressional hearing after the fact about why we invaded Iraq second time around. If there weren't how do Republicans justify 8 hearing on Benghazi?

Syria did happen on Obama watch, but Iraq did have something to do with it. ISIS started in Iraq, and ISIS sent its troops into Syria to expand their sick view of the world.

You want to place the blame on someone start here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Maliki

We are leading from behind. However, America citizens are/were tired of war. This had to affect some of Obama's thinking in the Middle East. Again, we had to deal with a bad situation, and he made it worse. The next president is going to handed the -hit sandwich, and good luck dealing with it.

I will post the Wikipedia history of ISIS. It is really long.

This reply is rambling and has no point at all.

The point was made by a poster and he stated why he is not proud any longer.

I join in that, and it is not all about the President. We have become a nation of hypocrites. We say we care but ignored mass slaughter. We seem to only care in ripe political situations. We say we care, but are allowing our very laws to be held in contempt on everything from immigration to race to.....and this always gets my blood boiling....sanctuary cities...set up to harbor law breakers (fresh in my mind because today, the democrats voted down a bill to withhold funds from the cities protecting lawbreakers).

No you ramble on..your goal appears to be to exonerate Obama and do the honorable thing...blame Bush.

Nobody is aiming at Obama alone...a few instances were cited as dissapointment a, but the post you are trying to respond to is about a country that lacks respects from others, lacks respect for its own laws and seems to be just happy with it.

[Guest]

President Ford stopped sending military aid, and cut off funding to South Vietnam. South Vietnam fell very quickly after that. US citizens were tired of that war, and we got out. You don't think that here were plenty of war crimes committed during that war. So, American presidents have looked the other way to war crimes.

There was information about what the Nazis were doing to the Jews during World War II. Roosevelt probably knew what was going on. We stayed out of that war until Pearl Harbor. Hell, there were congressional hearings about whether Roosevelt knew the Japanese planned to bomb Pearl Harbor, and allowed it to happen.

I am really not sure were there any congressional hearing after the fact about why we invaded Iraq second time around. If there weren't how do Republicans justify 8 hearing on Benghazi?

Syria did happen on Obama watch, but Iraq did have something to do with it. ISIS started in Iraq, and ISIS sent its troops into Syria to expand their sick view of the world.

You want to place the blame on someone start here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Maliki

We are leading from behind. However, America citizens are/were tired of war. This had to affect some of Obama's thinking in the Middle East. Again, we had to deal with a bad situation, and he made it worse. The next president is going to handed the -hit sandwich, and good luck dealing with it.

I will post the Wikipedia history of ISIS. It is really long.

Your post does not address our country ignoring the slaughter of children, while standing up and saying how we want justice for all.

Baloney....justice for those who serve our purpose.

Have a kid ? Grandchild ? Imagine that toddler of yours running for their very lives down a street, being gunned down and gassed and left to lie there while we watched and did nothing. No wonder they hate us. We ARE hypocrites with our proclamations. We will fight shadow box with ISIS, and when they reach our shores, we will expect the world to sympathize with us and help us.

[Guest]

We also boost the economy of Cuba by embracing them, while they remain one of the largest violators of human rights in the world and never even asked them while we negotiated about the criminals being harbored there wanted in USA.

We also boost the economy of the largest single state sponsor of terrorism in the entire world (Iran) and negotiate but do not even ask about the americans being held there.

We offered last week to talk with N Korea, who broke off talks with us on nuclear containment with no mention of conditions.

I suppose this is supposed to make us a good guy or something.

[Guest]

President Ford stopped sending military aid, and cut off funding to South Vietnam. South Vietnam fell very quickly after that. US citizens were tired of that war, and we got out. You don't think that here were plenty of war crimes committed during that war. So, American presidents have looked the other way to war crimes.

There was information about what the Nazis were doing to the Jews during World War II. Roosevelt probably knew what was going on. We stayed out of that war until Pearl Harbor. Hell, there were congressional hearings about whether Roosevelt knew the Japanese planned to bomb Pearl Harbor, and allowed it to happen.

I am really not sure were there any congressional hearing after the fact about why we invaded Iraq second time around. If there weren't how do Republicans justify 8 hearing on Benghazi?

Syria did happen on Obama watch, but Iraq did have something to do with it. ISIS started in Iraq, and ISIS sent its troops into Syria to expand their sick view of the world.

You want to place the blame on someone start here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Maliki

We are leading from behind. However, America citizens are/were tired of war. This had to affect some of Obama's thinking in the Middle East. Again, we had to deal with a bad situation, and he made it worse. The next president is going to handed the -hit sandwich, and good luck dealing with it.

I will post the Wikipedia history of ISIS. It is really long.

Your long and rambling defense of Obama and anything he did or might have done is noted.

Your continuing anti Republican theme is noted.

[Guest]

President Ford stopped sending military aid, and cut off funding to South Vietnam. South Vietnam fell very quickly after that. US citizens were tired of that war, and we got out. You don't think that here were plenty of war crimes committed during that war. So, American presidents have looked the other way to war crimes.

There was information about what the Nazis were doing to the Jews during World War II. Roosevelt probably knew what was going on. We stayed out of that war until Pearl Harbor. Hell, there were congressional hearings about whether Roosevelt knew the Japanese planned to bomb Pearl Harbor, and allowed it to happen.

I am really not sure were there any congressional hearing after the fact about why we invaded Iraq second time around. If there weren't how do Republicans justify 8 hearing on Benghazi?

Syria did happen on Obama watch, but Iraq did have something to do with it. ISIS started in Iraq, and ISIS sent its troops into Syria to expand their sick view of the world.

You want to place the blame on someone start here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Maliki

We are leading from behind. However, America citizens are/were tired of war. This had to affect some of Obama's thinking in the Middle East. Again, we had to deal with a bad situation, and he made it worse. The next president is going to handed the -hit sandwich, and good luck dealing with it.

I will post the Wikipedia history of ISIS. It is really long.

TWO paragraphs telling us, I guess, that we should ignore war crimes.

A then statement about invading Iraq TWICE. I thought we invaded only once. First Gulf War ended in Kuwait.

WOW..

[Guest]

This reply is rambling and has no point at all.

The point was made by a poster and he stated why he is not proud any longer.

I join in that, and it is not all about the President. We have become a nation of hypocrites. We say we care but ignored mass slaughter. We seem to only care in ripe political situations. We say we care, but are allowing our very laws to be held in contempt on everything from immigration to race to.....and this always gets my blood boiling....sanctuary cities...set up to harbor law breakers (fresh in my mind because today, the democrats voted down a bill to withhold funds from the cities protecting lawbreakers).

No you ramble on..your goal appears to be to exonerate Obama and do the honorable thing...blame Bush.

Nobody is aiming at Obama alone...a few instances were cited as dissapointment a, but the post you are trying to respond to is about a country that lacks respects from others, lacks respect for its own laws and seems to be just happy with it.

Keep it up. You are holding true to form. Read his entire post, and try to retain everything that he said. I know it will be hard, but try anyway.

The man isn't like you, a one trick pony. He made other points, and not the only one you referenced. When he brought up several other things not related to Syria, was he rambling? I get it. The person that responses to multiple items in one post is guilty of changing the subject, but not the person that did it first. I have no problem with his post. Why do you? He started this thread. If he wants to bring other items up, there is no problem there.

You want some other examples of mass slaughter. How about Cambodia that happened during the Nixon administration? How about when Reagan turned tail, and ran, after the marine barracks was bombed in Lebanon, which made all the sense in the world? We have looked the other way, when mass slaughter has occurred in other countries by that countries leaders. This isn't something new.

What was the Republicans plan for Syria three years ago, when all this started? Defending this president! Three times, I have stated that Obama took a bad situation, and made it worse. Please explain to me, how that is a defense of Obama, or placing blame on Bush! Again, try reading the entire post, and not pick on one thing that is in the post.

[Guest]

TWO paragraphs telling us, I guess, that we should ignore war crimes.

A then statement about invading Iraq TWICE. I thought we invaded only once. First Gulf War ended in Kuwait.

WOW..

First Gulf War ended in Kuwait. WOW. You can say that again. You can't be serious. We bombed the hell out of Iraq. Their top line Republican Guard troops turned tail, and ran. Iraq left their low level soldiers in the Iraq desert to adsorb the full force of the UN troops. When the bombing stopped, we drove through Iraq like a knife through butter. Iraq soldiers were surrendering to newsmen.

We could have walked into Bagdad(sp). Saddam knew that, and surrendered.

[Guest]

This from some one who either does not know anything, or is restricted to what his party tells him to think.

Yes, no reason for Republicans to pass, but as so often happens with party hacks, they have short memories and only work with revisionist history.


"Immigration reform couldn’t pass into law when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress (in 2005-2006). It couldn’t pass when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress (in 2007-2008). It couldn’t pass when Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches (in 2009-2010). And now we officially know this after yesterday: It isn’t going to pass with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in charge of the Senate, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives (2011-2014). Back in 2008 or 2012, Republicans COULD argue that President Obama didn’t make immigration reform a priority, or that he took steps to stymie reform in when he was a senator. (And 2010, in particular, the one REAL moment of the Obama first term when immigration was possible, it was Senate Democratic leaders who weren’t ready to give up the politics of the issue. And the White House didn’t fight.) "

Why Immigration Reform Died in Congress - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/why-immigration-reform-died-congress-n145276)

PLEASE read this. The passing by the senate was yet another ploy to make Republicans look bad; something they have been snookered with since President Obama took office. (Read his reputation in Chicago..he knows how to play the game well).

Point is when you say that, you obviously have no clue. It is the political stuff that was being readied even before the Senate passed it.

You are truly beyond belief. Did you read the entire article or just the first paragraph? Make Republicans look bad! All Boehner had to do was put the bipartisan Senate bill to the floor for a vote, and it probably would have passed. The Hastert rule, where is that in the Constitution, prevented him from doing it. Obama doesn't have to try to make the Republicans look bad. They do a damn good job of that themselves.

[Guest]

This from some one who either does not know anything, or is restricted to what his party tells him to think.

Yes, no reason for Republicans to pass, but as so often happens with party hacks, they have short memories and only work with revisionist history.


"Immigration reform couldn’t pass into law when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress (in 2005-2006). It couldn’t pass when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress (in 2007-2008). It couldn’t pass when Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches (in 2009-2010). And now we officially know this after yesterday: It isn’t going to pass with a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in charge of the Senate, and Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives (2011-2014). Back in 2008 or 2012, Republicans COULD argue that President Obama didn’t make immigration reform a priority, or that he took steps to stymie reform in when he was a senator. (And 2010, in particular, the one REAL moment of the Obama first term when immigration was possible, it was Senate Democratic leaders who weren’t ready to give up the politics of the issue. And the White House didn’t fight.) "

Why Immigration Reform Died in Congress - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/why-immigration-reform-died-congress-n145276)

PLEASE read this. The passing by the senate was yet another ploy to make Republicans look bad; something they have been snookered with since President Obama took office. (Read his reputation in Chicago..he knows how to play the game well).

Point is when you say that, you obviously have no clue. It is the political stuff that was being readied even before the Senate passed it.

OK, Simple Simon, why did the immigration bill that Bush was pushing in 2007/2008 fail? The make up in the Senate for those years was 49 Democrats, and 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents, that caucused with the Democrats. Neither party had a 60 votes to pass a bill.

Please read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

[Guest]

OK, Simple Simon, why did the immigration bill that Bush was pushing in 2007/2008 fail? The make up in the Senate for those years was 49 Democrats, and 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents, that caucused with the Democrats. Neither party had a 60 votes to pass a bill.

Please read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

The point of the post that you are replying to in a political hack kind of way is that immigration reform is a big and complicated deal. It is not going to be resolved with political tricks by either party.

My post was not to defend either party, as yours was very party oriented.

It was defending a very short sighted, uninformed spin on the issue that in this case was trying to make Democrats heroes and Republicans bums.

Some day, post something that does not speak to your party. Read, get informed and then partake.

[Guest]

You are truly beyond belief. Did you read the entire article or just the first paragraph? Make Republicans look bad! All Boehner had to do was put the bipartisan Senate bill to the floor for a vote, and it probably would have passed. The Hastert rule, where is that in the Constitution, prevented him from doing it. Obama doesn't have to try to make the Republicans look bad. They do a damn good job of that themselves.

My reply was not intended to do anything along party lines, EXCEPT to dispel the implication in the post to which I replied.

That implication was that only one party stood in the way of any legislation, and to also allow readers to be aware of the trickery being used.

While I am a Republican, I owe them not BLIND ALLEGIANCE, and began my post acknowledging that the Republicans had no reason to pass.

If you wish to continue thinking Democrats are with no sin, and Republicans are evil, I certainly cannot change your mind. It appears you do offer BLIND AND TOTAL loyalty.

[Guest]

My reply was not intended to do anything along party lines, EXCEPT to dispel the implication in the post to which I replied.

That implication was that only one party stood in the way of any legislation, and to also allow readers to be aware of the trickery being used.

While I am a Republican, I owe them not BLIND ALLEGIANCE, and began my post acknowledging that the Republicans had no reason to pass.

If you wish to continue thinking Democrats are with no sin, and Republicans are evil, I certainly cannot change your mind. It appears you do offer BLIND AND TOTAL loyalty.

First of all, I am a moderate independent that fully intends to vote for John Kasich in the Fl. primary. I am not the problem. The Republicans have gone so far to the right that moderate has lost its meaning even in its own party. If that is your definition of evil, they are evil. I think that they are more in the line of inflexible. The only way for problems to get corrected in a divided government is, if the parties work together. Why is this a problem?

To other issues with your original post, the Republicans have nothing to gain. So, addressing the illegal immigration issue in a humane way is wrong. Deporting them is the only way to go. "W' didn't agree with this. Jeb, Rubio, unless he has changed his mind, Ryan, and other high ranking Republicans don't agree with this.

Take a look at the names of the party of 12 that were involved in the 2007 immigration legislation. They were all Senators with long time experience in government. Both parties had a hand in killing the 2007 legislation, and for totally different reasons.

The recent illegal immigration bill past the Senate. In the article you referenced, it stated that House Republicans saw no immediate benefit to approve or even vote on the bill. What TRICKERY are you talking about?

Sending a bipartisan bill to the House that would go a long way to correct the illegal immigration problem is trickery, because the Senate Democrats knew that the Freedom Caucus would oppose the bill. The Senate Republicans weren't aware of the Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus would vote against the bill. Since the Republican house wouldn't have a majority of the majority, the bill would never hit the floor for a vote. The House Republicans say that there is no Hastert rule being applied there despite all evidence to the contrary.

Senate Republicans would have to be total morons to be tricked in this manner.

I am not blind to the fact that most of the people posting on this board are Republicans. As such, they have assumed the far right position of their party. There is only one way to fix a problem their way. Anyone that doesn't agree with them doesn't know what they are talking about. Trying to get people here back to some sort of reality isn't blind loyalty to the Democrat party. It is a road to nowhere, and I am driving on at full speed.

[Guest]

First of all, I am a moderate independent that fully intends to vote for John Kasich in the Fl. primary. I am not the problem. The Republicans have gone so far to the right that moderate has lost its meaning even in its own party. If that is your definition of evil, they are evil. I think that they are more in the line of inflexible. The only way for problems to get corrected in a divided government is, if the parties work together. Why is this a problem?

To other issues with your original post, the Republicans have nothing to gain. So, addressing the illegal immigration issue in a humane way is wrong. Deporting them is the only way to go. "W' didn't agree with this. Jeb, Rubio, unless he has changed his mind, Ryan, and other high ranking Republicans don't agree with this.

Take a look at the names of the party of 12 that were involved in the 2007 immigration legislation. They were all Senators with long time experience in government. Both parties had a hand in killing the 2007 legislation, and for totally different reasons.

The recent illegal immigration bill past the Senate. In the article you referenced, it stated that House Republicans saw no immediate benefit to approve or even vote on the bill. What TRICKERY are you talking about?

Sending a bipartisan bill to the House that would go a long way to correct the illegal immigration problem is trickery, because the Senate Democrats knew that the Freedom Caucus would oppose the bill. The Senate Republicans weren't aware of the Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus would vote against the bill. Since the Republican house wouldn't have a majority of the majority, the bill would never hit the floor for a vote. The House Republicans say that there is no Hastert rule being applied there despite all evidence to the contrary.

Senate Republicans would have to be total morons to be tricked in this manner.

I am not blind to the fact that most of the people posting on this board are Republicans. As such, they have assumed the far right position of their party. There is only one way to fix a problem their way. Anyone that doesn't agree with them doesn't know what they are talking about. Trying to get people here back to some sort of reality isn't blind loyalty to the Democrat party. It is a road to nowhere, and I am driving on at full speed.

You are pretty mixed up. The Republicans have moved too far to the middle/moderate, and that's the problem. Now, we have some conservatives being elected to congress and they are bumping heads with the moderates and liberals on the far left (all the Dems). What we need is more moving to the right. You are not fooling anyone by saying you are going to vote for Kasich. We have heard you time and time again putting down the Republicans for being too far to the right. Nope, you are another liberal that can' t fool anyone.

This country has just about accepted socialism. The enemy of Freedom. And liberals are cramming socialism down our throats. Keep pushing and you will get a civil war and it won't be pretty.

[Guest]

First of all, I am a moderate independent that fully intends to vote for John Kasich in the Fl. primary. I am not the problem. The Republicans have gone so far to the right that moderate has lost its meaning even in its own party. If that is your definition of evil, they are evil. I think that they are more in the line of inflexible. The only way for problems to get corrected in a divided government is, if the parties work together. Why is this a problem?

To other issues with your original post, the Republicans have nothing to gain. So, addressing the illegal immigration issue in a humane way is wrong. Deporting them is the only way to go. "W' didn't agree with this. Jeb, Rubio, unless he has changed his mind, Ryan, and other high ranking Republicans don't agree with this.

Take a look at the names of the party of 12 that were involved in the 2007 immigration legislation. They were all Senators with long time experience in government. Both parties had a hand in killing the 2007 legislation, and for totally different reasons.

The recent illegal immigration bill past the Senate. In the article you referenced, it stated that House Republicans saw no immediate benefit to approve or even vote on the bill. What TRICKERY are you talking about?

Sending a bipartisan bill to the House that would go a long way to correct the illegal immigration problem is trickery, because the Senate Democrats knew that the Freedom Caucus would oppose the bill. The Senate Republicans weren't aware of the Freedom Caucus. The Freedom Caucus would vote against the bill. Since the Republican house wouldn't have a majority of the majority, the bill would never hit the floor for a vote. The House Republicans say that there is no Hastert rule being applied there despite all evidence to the contrary.

Senate Republicans would have to be total morons to be tricked in this manner.

I am not blind to the fact that most of the people posting on this board are Republicans. As such, they have assumed the far right position of their party. There is only one way to fix a problem their way. Anyone that doesn't agree with them doesn't know what they are talking about. Trying to get people here back to some sort of reality isn't blind loyalty to the Democrat party. It is a road to nowhere, and I am driving on at full speed.

Your posts are becoming more and more clear as to your hypocrisy.

All your posts have one theme and one theme only...anti Republican and hooray for Democrats.

That is fine but your hypocrisy in trying to hide that is sad.

You totally distorted the link, the thought and the reason for the post.

You took a link that blamed both parties, and honed in on only the Republicans.

Then you say the Republican Party is moving so far right, when the candidate getting all the back slaps on the Democratic side is an admitted and avowed socialist.

The Republicans are not moving anywhere, and in fact the internal squabbles within the party are trying to stay put.

It has become apparent that you are a progressive, and that's fine, but you are not proud of it because every post you make is cloaked in this anti Republican thoughts.

You really very seriously cherry picked the link, ignored when Democrats foiled any movement and honed in on the other, without once making a statement

Step up and be honest...stop blaming posters for how they believe. At least they say it...make your case clearly on what side of any issue and where you stand. Stop making general statements about parties.

Your posts are really hard to read and respond to as you swing around changing history, always cognizant that you must demean Republicans but try to hide it.