(03-23-2016 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you see, that IS the problem. Candidates are specific on what they meant so ignorant, uneducated people repeat the same thing and take it to heart. So you no longer have people saying that they want to stop terrorism but instead ban all Muslims. Or they no longer say they want to secure the border but instead say stop all immigration.

So the blame isn't on average Americans who know what they meant and played the gotcha game. The blame is on the candidates themselves for not being specific and on their supporters for spreading that none specific nonsense.

Don't pretend for a minute that they don't do it on purpose either.

I know you think so and there are certainly examples... but this isn't one of them. Follow me for a minute.

I've quoted for you where Cruz actually WAS specific. Before the comment in the OP, he spoke of 'isolated, radical' areas where there is a higher incidence of 'radical terrorism'. The press and people with agendas against Cruz generally leaves those comments off... and simply focus on the one in the OP. Even President Obama engaged in it, accusing Cruz of calling for the sort of 'monitoring' that took place in communist Cuba under Castro... which isn't remotely what Cruz was talking about, unless Cuba only monitored isolated places where terrorism was occurring. More to the point, Cruz also compared it specifically to the higher police presence and monitoring of areas controlled by gangs... which is obviously done under the Obama administration... and when he was a Congressman and 'community activist'.

Obama himself (with the help of the media) has created an image where Cruz was talking about simply monitoring all Muslims, which ISN'T AT ALL what he said... and only someone with an agenda would read it that way.

Yes, Racists have an agenda so they heard what they wanted to hear as well... but it CLEARLY isn't what Cruz was implying.

Although I've picked this one incidence, I don't claim that Cruz hasn't done it to Obama or Hillary or Trump or anyone else himself... I'm just saying that it's shameful. Yes, I could blame the candidates... but they're only doing what it takes to win an election. You can run a clean campaign and lose or you can 'play the game' and win. The reason they 'play the game' is because WE buy it. Obama isn't running for office.... I'm painting him very clearly as someone more interested in 'his team' winning than in truth or fairness or anything else. An example of my comment that 'the ends justify the means'.

I blame us because politicians (and the media) would stop if it didn't work. I don't care if you heard what you wanted to hear and I heard something else... Honest people can disagree... I care that people whose jobs it should be to be unbiased (the media) and people whose jobs it should be to be honest with their constituents (politicians) 'WIN' (with us) by being biased and lying to us.

(03-24-2016 09:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you see, that IS the problem. Candidates are specific on what they meant so ignorant, uneducated people repeat the same thing and take it to heart. So you no longer have people saying that they want to stop terrorism but instead ban all Muslims. Or they no longer say they want to secure the border but instead say stop all immigration.

So the blame isn't on average Americans who know what they meant and played the gotcha game. The blame is on the candidates themselves for not being specific and on their supporters for spreading that none specific nonsense.

Don't pretend for a minute that they don't do it on purpose either.

I know you think so and there are certainly examples... but this isn't one of them. Follow me for a minute.

I've quoted for you where Cruz actually WAS specific. Before the comment in the OP, he spoke of 'isolated, radical' areas where there is a higher incidence of 'radical terrorism'. The press and people with agendas against Cruz generally leaves those comments off... and simply focus on the one in the OP. Even President Obama engaged in it, accusing Cruz of calling for the sort of 'monitoring' that took place in communist Cuba under Castro... which isn't remotely what Cruz was talking about, unless Cuba only monitored isolated places where terrorism was occurring. More to the point, Cruz also compared it specifically to the higher police presence and monitoring of areas controlled by gangs... which is obviously done under the Obama administration... and when he was a Congressman and 'community activist'.

Obama himself (with the help of the media) has created an image where Cruz was talking about simply monitoring all Muslims, which ISN'T AT ALL what he said... and only someone with an agenda would read it that way.

Yes, Racists have an agenda so they heard what they wanted to hear as well... but it CLEARLY isn't what Cruz was implying.

Although I've picked this one incidence, I don't claim that Cruz hasn't done it to Obama or Hillary or Trump or anyone else himself... I'm just saying that it's shameful. Yes, I could blame the candidates... but they're only doing what it takes to win an election. You can run a clean campaign and lose or you can 'play the game' and win. The reason they 'play the game' is because WE buy it. Obama isn't running for office.... I'm painting him very clearly as someone more interested in 'his team' winning than in truth or fairness or anything else. An example of my comment that 'the ends justify the means'.

I blame us because politicians (and the media) would stop if it didn't work. I don't care if you heard what you wanted to hear and I heard something else... Honest people can disagree... I care that people whose jobs it should be to be unbiased (the media) and people whose jobs it should be to be honest with their constituents (politicians) 'WIN' (with us) by being biased and lying to us.

I guess you are right. I'll admit that I am to blame for hearing what I want to hear and saying what I want to say to help our team.

I have often said that politics is like watching sports. Perhaps I should stop seeing it that way.

In my defense however, I stopped believing long ago that anything I said or how I voted made any sort of difference a long, long time ago.

(03-24-2016 09:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you see, that IS the problem. Candidates are specific on what they meant so ignorant, uneducated people repeat the same thing and take it to heart. So you no longer have people saying that they want to stop terrorism but instead ban all Muslims. Or they no longer say they want to secure the border but instead say stop all immigration.

So the blame isn't on average Americans who know what they meant and played the gotcha game. The blame is on the candidates themselves for not being specific and on their supporters for spreading that none specific nonsense.

Don't pretend for a minute that they don't do it on purpose either.

I know you think so and there are certainly examples... but this isn't one of them. Follow me for a minute.

I've quoted for you where Cruz actually WAS specific. Before the comment in the OP, he spoke of 'isolated, radical' areas where there is a higher incidence of 'radical terrorism'. The press and people with agendas against Cruz generally leaves those comments off... and simply focus on the one in the OP. Even President Obama engaged in it, accusing Cruz of calling for the sort of 'monitoring' that took place in communist Cuba under Castro... which isn't remotely what Cruz was talking about, unless Cuba only monitored isolated places where terrorism was occurring. More to the point, Cruz also compared it specifically to the higher police presence and monitoring of areas controlled by gangs... which is obviously done under the Obama administration... and when he was a Congressman and 'community activist'.

Obama himself (with the help of the media) has created an image where Cruz was talking about simply monitoring all Muslims, which ISN'T AT ALL what he said... and only someone with an agenda would read it that way.

Yes, Racists have an agenda so they heard what they wanted to hear as well... but it CLEARLY isn't what Cruz was implying.

Although I've picked this one incidence, I don't claim that Cruz hasn't done it to Obama or Hillary or Trump or anyone else himself... I'm just saying that it's shameful. Yes, I could blame the candidates... but they're only doing what it takes to win an election. You can run a clean campaign and lose or you can 'play the game' and win. The reason they 'play the game' is because WE buy it. Obama isn't running for office.... I'm painting him very clearly as someone more interested in 'his team' winning than in truth or fairness or anything else. An example of my comment that 'the ends justify the means'.

I blame us because politicians (and the media) would stop if it didn't work. I don't care if you heard what you wanted to hear and I heard something else... Honest people can disagree... I care that people whose jobs it should be to be unbiased (the media) and people whose jobs it should be to be honest with their constituents (politicians) 'WIN' (with us) by being biased and lying to us.

Does it really even matter? Those places don't exist in America. Even Ted can't name one place where it does.

‘Can You Name a Neighborhood?’: CNN Host Grills Cruz Over Proposal to ‘Secure Muslim Neighborhoods’

Ted likes to claim this is similar to what they did in New York. However, the New York officials have said that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

(03-24-2016 10:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  In my defense however, I stopped believing long ago that anything I said or how I voted made any sort of difference a long, long time ago.

I agree, which is why in another thread I've called for a government of more like 3000 representatives rather than 537 for 350+mm people. How can you possibly represent 650,000 people with one vote?

(03-24-2016 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Does it really even matter? Those places don't exist in America. Even Ted can't name one place where it does.

More examples of what I'm talking about

Then A, it's not the problematic comment that the left seems to think it is, is it? and B, I suspect you don't get out much. If I knew specifically where those places were and wanted to 'get' the bad guys there, I certainly wouldn't advertise that I knew where they were. While I don't personally know where such a radical Islamic area is, I certainly know where Islamic neighborhoods are... I know where Asian and Hispanic and Russian neighborhoods are too... AND I know there are SOME areas there where you don't go.

Quote:Ted likes to claim this is similar to what they did in New York. However, the New York officials have said that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Just because someone claims they don't know what he's talking about doesn't mean they don't know what he's talking about, and vice versa. Obama claims to know what he's talking about and then clearly misrepresents what that is.

New York officials (and Chicago and Houston and LA and DC) certainly step up patrols of areas where gang violence increases or that are 'hotbeds' of recruiting to groups like MS13 and others. That's all he's talking about. If you have isolated communities or areas where radical Islamist terrorists are being recruited to commit violence, we should step up patrols in those areas. Certainly that is what has happened in Brussels and France... and cops can all (but ones seeking political office wouldn't) tell you where those neighborhoods are.

I find it silly that 'the left' on this issue simultaneously argues that we get most of our intel on radical Muslims and attempts to recruit members from peaceful ones who hear about them/witness them, and then we deny that areas where radical Muslims are attempting to recruit and radicalize others exist. We can disagree that guys in uniform with guns will help, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't put 'assets' in those areas to help.

(03-24-2016 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 09:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you see, that IS the problem. Candidates are specific on what they meant so ignorant, uneducated people repeat the same thing and take it to heart. So you no longer have people saying that they want to stop terrorism but instead ban all Muslims. Or they no longer say they want to secure the border but instead say stop all immigration.

So the blame isn't on average Americans who know what they meant and played the gotcha game. The blame is on the candidates themselves for not being specific and on their supporters for spreading that none specific nonsense.

Don't pretend for a minute that they don't do it on purpose either.

I know you think so and there are certainly examples... but this isn't one of them. Follow me for a minute.

I've quoted for you where Cruz actually WAS specific. Before the comment in the OP, he spoke of 'isolated, radical' areas where there is a higher incidence of 'radical terrorism'. The press and people with agendas against Cruz generally leaves those comments off... and simply focus on the one in the OP. Even President Obama engaged in it, accusing Cruz of calling for the sort of 'monitoring' that took place in communist Cuba under Castro... which isn't remotely what Cruz was talking about, unless Cuba only monitored isolated places where terrorism was occurring. More to the point, Cruz also compared it specifically to the higher police presence and monitoring of areas controlled by gangs... which is obviously done under the Obama administration... and when he was a Congressman and 'community activist'.

Obama himself (with the help of the media) has created an image where Cruz was talking about simply monitoring all Muslims, which ISN'T AT ALL what he said... and only someone with an agenda would read it that way.

Yes, Racists have an agenda so they heard what they wanted to hear as well... but it CLEARLY isn't what Cruz was implying.

Although I've picked this one incidence, I don't claim that Cruz hasn't done it to Obama or Hillary or Trump or anyone else himself... I'm just saying that it's shameful. Yes, I could blame the candidates... but they're only doing what it takes to win an election. You can run a clean campaign and lose or you can 'play the game' and win. The reason they 'play the game' is because WE buy it. Obama isn't running for office.... I'm painting him very clearly as someone more interested in 'his team' winning than in truth or fairness or anything else. An example of my comment that 'the ends justify the means'.

I blame us because politicians (and the media) would stop if it didn't work. I don't care if you heard what you wanted to hear and I heard something else... Honest people can disagree... I care that people whose jobs it should be to be unbiased (the media) and people whose jobs it should be to be honest with their constituents (politicians) 'WIN' (with us) by being biased and lying to us.

Does it really even matter? Those places don't exist in America. Even Ted can't name one place where it does.

‘Can You Name a Neighborhood?’: CNN Host Grills Cruz Over Proposal to ‘Secure Muslim Neighborhoods’

Ted likes to claim this is similar to what they did in New York. However, the New York officials have said that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I cannot name a neighborhood, but I can name a whole city... Dearborn, MI and I can even post pictures if you want.

(03-24-2016 07:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 07:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 11:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Since many of you think this is a good idea, perhaps you should explain exactly how this is going to work.

1. What constitutes a "Muslim neighborhood". How many Muslims does it take in one neighborhood to be worthy of patrolling?

2. How exactly do you patrol Muslims before they become radicalized?

3. How does one determine which Muslims to patrol before being radicalized?

Just a few questions I have for Ted.

Hey genius, police patrol white neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, Jewish neighborhoods, and so on. Why shouldn't they patrol a Muslim majority neighborhood?

Patrol every neighborhood without worrying about the demographic neighborhood and there's no dicrimination.

So Muslim neighborhoods are the only ones that weren't being patrolled?

Right now yes. Mexican neighborhoods would be next.

(03-24-2016 10:53 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 09:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you see, that IS the problem. Candidates are specific on what they meant so ignorant, uneducated people repeat the same thing and take it to heart. So you no longer have people saying that they want to stop terrorism but instead ban all Muslims. Or they no longer say they want to secure the border but instead say stop all immigration.

So the blame isn't on average Americans who know what they meant and played the gotcha game. The blame is on the candidates themselves for not being specific and on their supporters for spreading that none specific nonsense.

Don't pretend for a minute that they don't do it on purpose either.

I know you think so and there are certainly examples... but this isn't one of them. Follow me for a minute.

I've quoted for you where Cruz actually WAS specific. Before the comment in the OP, he spoke of 'isolated, radical' areas where there is a higher incidence of 'radical terrorism'. The press and people with agendas against Cruz generally leaves those comments off... and simply focus on the one in the OP. Even President Obama engaged in it, accusing Cruz of calling for the sort of 'monitoring' that took place in communist Cuba under Castro... which isn't remotely what Cruz was talking about, unless Cuba only monitored isolated places where terrorism was occurring. More to the point, Cruz also compared it specifically to the higher police presence and monitoring of areas controlled by gangs... which is obviously done under the Obama administration... and when he was a Congressman and 'community activist'.

Obama himself (with the help of the media) has created an image where Cruz was talking about simply monitoring all Muslims, which ISN'T AT ALL what he said... and only someone with an agenda would read it that way.

Yes, Racists have an agenda so they heard what they wanted to hear as well... but it CLEARLY isn't what Cruz was implying.

Although I've picked this one incidence, I don't claim that Cruz hasn't done it to Obama or Hillary or Trump or anyone else himself... I'm just saying that it's shameful. Yes, I could blame the candidates... but they're only doing what it takes to win an election. You can run a clean campaign and lose or you can 'play the game' and win. The reason they 'play the game' is because WE buy it. Obama isn't running for office.... I'm painting him very clearly as someone more interested in 'his team' winning than in truth or fairness or anything else. An example of my comment that 'the ends justify the means'.

I blame us because politicians (and the media) would stop if it didn't work. I don't care if you heard what you wanted to hear and I heard something else... Honest people can disagree... I care that people whose jobs it should be to be unbiased (the media) and people whose jobs it should be to be honest with their constituents (politicians) 'WIN' (with us) by being biased and lying to us.

Does it really even matter? Those places don't exist in America. Even Ted can't name one place where it does.

‘Can You Name a Neighborhood?’: CNN Host Grills Cruz Over Proposal to ‘Secure Muslim Neighborhoods’

Ted likes to claim this is similar to what they did in New York. However, the New York officials have said that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I cannot name a neighborhood, but I can name a whole city... Dearborn, MI and I can even post pictures if you want.

Post the pictures

(03-24-2016 07:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 07:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 11:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Since many of you think this is a good idea, perhaps you should explain exactly how this is going to work.

1. What constitutes a "Muslim neighborhood". How many Muslims does it take in one neighborhood to be worthy of patrolling?

2. How exactly do you patrol Muslims before they become radicalized?

3. How does one determine which Muslims to patrol before being radicalized?

Just a few questions I have for Ted.

Hey genius, police patrol white neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, Jewish neighborhoods, and so on. Why shouldn't they patrol a Muslim majority neighborhood?

Patrol every neighborhood without worrying about the demographic neighborhood and there's no dicrimination.

So Muslim neighborhoods are the only ones that weren't being patrolled?

That's the line of thought. I'm not claiming they aren't being patrolled at all, but if there is activity in the neighborhood that merits extra attention, extra attention should be paid now before it reaches a point as in other countries where it's too hard to patrol.

The law applies equally as should the enforcement.

(03-23-2016 10:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  "We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized,"


Link

Stupid statement but we can *NOT* stick our head in the sand about what happens in Majority Muslim Communities in Europe and what we see the beginnings of in cities like Dearborn.

(03-23-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 11:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Put the breaks on all immigration.

That is exactly the kind o knee jerk reactions that republicans have that is so ignorant and off putting.

Immigration does not exist for other nations. It exists to enhance and improve america. We see in Europe when you treat citizenship or residence in your nation as a human right to be bestowed to people who have no respect for actual human rights.

(03-24-2016 11:20 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 11:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Put the breaks on all immigration.

That is exactly the kind o knee jerk reactions that republicans have that is so ignorant and off putting.

Immigration does not exist for other nations. It exists to enhance and improve america. We see in Europe when you treat citizenship or residence in your nation as a human right to be bestowed to people who have no respect for actual human rights.

You are being naive if you think immigration can be stopped. The only way you can stop it is by becoming a nation so vile, that people want to leave.

(03-24-2016 11:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:20 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 11:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Put the breaks on all immigration.

That is exactly the kind o knee jerk reactions that republicans have that is so ignorant and off putting.

Immigration does not exist for other nations. It exists to enhance and improve america. We see in Europe when you treat citizenship or residence in your nation as a human right to be bestowed to people who have no respect for actual human rights.

You are being naive if you think immigration can be stopped. The only way you can stop it is by becoming a nation so vile, that people want to leave.

Where did he say anything about stopping immigration?

(03-24-2016 10:53 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 09:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you see, that IS the problem. Candidates are specific on what they meant so ignorant, uneducated people repeat the same thing and take it to heart. So you no longer have people saying that they want to stop terrorism but instead ban all Muslims. Or they no longer say they want to secure the border but instead say stop all immigration.

So the blame isn't on average Americans who know what they meant and played the gotcha game. The blame is on the candidates themselves for not being specific and on their supporters for spreading that none specific nonsense.

Don't pretend for a minute that they don't do it on purpose either.

I know you think so and there are certainly examples... but this isn't one of them. Follow me for a minute.

I've quoted for you where Cruz actually WAS specific. Before the comment in the OP, he spoke of 'isolated, radical' areas where there is a higher incidence of 'radical terrorism'. The press and people with agendas against Cruz generally leaves those comments off... and simply focus on the one in the OP. Even President Obama engaged in it, accusing Cruz of calling for the sort of 'monitoring' that took place in communist Cuba under Castro... which isn't remotely what Cruz was talking about, unless Cuba only monitored isolated places where terrorism was occurring. More to the point, Cruz also compared it specifically to the higher police presence and monitoring of areas controlled by gangs... which is obviously done under the Obama administration... and when he was a Congressman and 'community activist'.

Obama himself (with the help of the media) has created an image where Cruz was talking about simply monitoring all Muslims, which ISN'T AT ALL what he said... and only someone with an agenda would read it that way.

Yes, Racists have an agenda so they heard what they wanted to hear as well... but it CLEARLY isn't what Cruz was implying.

Although I've picked this one incidence, I don't claim that Cruz hasn't done it to Obama or Hillary or Trump or anyone else himself... I'm just saying that it's shameful. Yes, I could blame the candidates... but they're only doing what it takes to win an election. You can run a clean campaign and lose or you can 'play the game' and win. The reason they 'play the game' is because WE buy it. Obama isn't running for office.... I'm painting him very clearly as someone more interested in 'his team' winning than in truth or fairness or anything else. An example of my comment that 'the ends justify the means'.

I blame us because politicians (and the media) would stop if it didn't work. I don't care if you heard what you wanted to hear and I heard something else... Honest people can disagree... I care that people whose jobs it should be to be unbiased (the media) and people whose jobs it should be to be honest with their constituents (politicians) 'WIN' (with us) by being biased and lying to us.

Does it really even matter? Those places don't exist in America. Even Ted can't name one place where it does.

‘Can You Name a Neighborhood?’: CNN Host Grills Cruz Over Proposal to ‘Secure Muslim Neighborhoods’

Ted likes to claim this is similar to what they did in New York. However, the New York officials have said that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I cannot name a neighborhood, but I can name a whole city... Dearborn, MI and I can even post pictures if you want.

Have you even been to Dearborn, MI? You clearly have no clue what you're even talking about.

But you're probably right...remember when Oklalittle told us that they voted in Sharia Law?

Oklalittle still comes around every now and then doesn't he?

(03-24-2016 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Oklalittle still comes around every now and then doesn't he?

No. He's too busy maintaining his ghost town.

(03-24-2016 11:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:53 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 09:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 02:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you see, that IS the problem. Candidates are specific on what they meant so ignorant, uneducated people repeat the same thing and take it to heart. So you no longer have people saying that they want to stop terrorism but instead ban all Muslims. Or they no longer say they want to secure the border but instead say stop all immigration.

So the blame isn't on average Americans who know what they meant and played the gotcha game. The blame is on the candidates themselves for not being specific and on their supporters for spreading that none specific nonsense.

Don't pretend for a minute that they don't do it on purpose either.

I know you think so and there are certainly examples... but this isn't one of them. Follow me for a minute.

I've quoted for you where Cruz actually WAS specific. Before the comment in the OP, he spoke of 'isolated, radical' areas where there is a higher incidence of 'radical terrorism'. The press and people with agendas against Cruz generally leaves those comments off... and simply focus on the one in the OP. Even President Obama engaged in it, accusing Cruz of calling for the sort of 'monitoring' that took place in communist Cuba under Castro... which isn't remotely what Cruz was talking about, unless Cuba only monitored isolated places where terrorism was occurring. More to the point, Cruz also compared it specifically to the higher police presence and monitoring of areas controlled by gangs... which is obviously done under the Obama administration... and when he was a Congressman and 'community activist'.

Obama himself (with the help of the media) has created an image where Cruz was talking about simply monitoring all Muslims, which ISN'T AT ALL what he said... and only someone with an agenda would read it that way.

Yes, Racists have an agenda so they heard what they wanted to hear as well... but it CLEARLY isn't what Cruz was implying.

Although I've picked this one incidence, I don't claim that Cruz hasn't done it to Obama or Hillary or Trump or anyone else himself... I'm just saying that it's shameful. Yes, I could blame the candidates... but they're only doing what it takes to win an election. You can run a clean campaign and lose or you can 'play the game' and win. The reason they 'play the game' is because WE buy it. Obama isn't running for office.... I'm painting him very clearly as someone more interested in 'his team' winning than in truth or fairness or anything else. An example of my comment that 'the ends justify the means'.

I blame us because politicians (and the media) would stop if it didn't work. I don't care if you heard what you wanted to hear and I heard something else... Honest people can disagree... I care that people whose jobs it should be to be unbiased (the media) and people whose jobs it should be to be honest with their constituents (politicians) 'WIN' (with us) by being biased and lying to us.

Does it really even matter? Those places don't exist in America. Even Ted can't name one place where it does.

‘Can You Name a Neighborhood?’: CNN Host Grills Cruz Over Proposal to ‘Secure Muslim Neighborhoods’

Ted likes to claim this is similar to what they did in New York. However, the New York officials have said that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I cannot name a neighborhood, but I can name a whole city... Dearborn, MI and I can even post pictures if you want.

Have you even been to Dearborn, MI? You clearly have no clue what you're even talking about.

But you're probably right...remember when Oklalittle told us that they voted in Sharia Law?

who ever said anything about sharia law?

Patrolling neighborhoods isn't something the Federal Government needs to be doing anything about, empowering or otherwise.

For all of Ted's comments about the Constitution he sure has no problems ignoring it when there are political points to potentially be scored.

(03-24-2016 11:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:20 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 11:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Put the breaks on all immigration.

That is exactly the kind o knee jerk reactions that republicans have that is so ignorant and off putting.

Immigration does not exist for other nations. It exists to enhance and improve america. We see in Europe when you treat citizenship or residence in your nation as a human right to be bestowed to people who have no respect for actual human rights.

You are being naive if you think immigration can be stopped. The only way you can stop it is by becoming a nation so vile, that people want to leave.

And you're a moron if you saw me say it should be stopped.

(03-24-2016 11:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 11:20 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 11:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Put the breaks on all immigration.

That is exactly the kind o knee jerk reactions that republicans have that is so ignorant and off putting.

Immigration does not exist for other nations. It exists to enhance and improve america. We see in Europe when you treat citizenship or residence in your nation as a human right to be bestowed to people who have no respect for actual human rights.

You are being naive if you think immigration can be stopped. The only way you can stop it is by becoming a nation so vile, that people want to leave.

Immigration can be stopped, but legal immigration after a very thorough vetting policy and monitoring afterwards of individuals from regions where extremism is prevalent doesn't need to be stopped.

Illegal immigration can be stopped when we make the punishment far worse than what it is now and we secure the border. As i have stated many, many times before make the risk greater than the reward and like everything else it will stop.