• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Red states should be forced to accept Syrian refugees

solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...

Just plain dumb and as divisive as the CON governors ranting on about 'protecting' their citizens with blanket exclusions... :peace
 
solletica said:
It should be the responsibility of the red states to vet their incoming refugees. With all the federal aid they're getting, that shouldn't be a problem for them.
Click to expand...

So lets get rid of the federal aid then. What are we fighting about?
 
solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that Bush was one of the 76 Senators in a Democrat controlled Senate in 2002 that authorized the war against Saddam Hussein or was a Democrat who supported the Iraq Liberation Act and the removal of Saddam Hussein. Seems like revisionist history to me.

Further wonder why it is so many here refuse to acknowledge the goal of Radical Islam and then offer a solution other than trying to reform them by bringing them into our communities? I know this is hard for some to believe but was have a Representative Republic and 50 sovereign states not ruled by a King or a college professor. Liberals don't seem to understand this country's government at all
 
jonny5 said:
So lets get rid of the federal aid then. What are we fighting about?
Click to expand...

Great, then we can do away with taxes paid to the Federal Govt. by the citizens of the states since that is where the aid comes from? Apparently you believe that the citizens of the states should pay their taxes to the Federal Govt. then never get any of that money back?
 
Conservative said:
Great, then we can do away with taxes paid to the Federal Govt. by the citizens of the states since that is where the aid comes from? Apparently you believe that the citizens of the states should pay their taxes to the Federal Govt. then never get any of that money back?
Click to expand...

The former. Cut spending, lower taxes, no refugees. Win, Win, Win.
 
iguanaman said:
If you had read the story you would know the operation was planned before the Paris attacks and were not in response to them. I'm afraid you would need 5 stars in order to understand why it was done now. You could at least be supportive of it anyway but then you would need to admit you don't know everything. :lol:
Click to expand...



You don't think it has to do with assad and russia buying that oil that he was too much a coward to bomb it?
 
solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...

Welfare recipients should live SOLELY off the backs of the blue states, since it was they that voted in the Texan who started the War on Poverty, and voted for our current welfare state.s
 
CanadaJohn said:
But in a realistic sense, once a "refugee" enters American territory, what stops that person from deciding to relocate anywhere within the 50 states?
Click to expand...


Not only is that true, but ISIS has issued threats against NYC and Los Angeles, both in blue states.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Not only is that true, but ISIS has issued threats against NYC and Los Angeles, both in blue states.
Click to expand...

Large cities are in blue states for the most part, why would anyone want to risk it?
 
nota bene said:
The OP's twisted, punitive argument may be the silliest I've ever read at DP. I'm just amazed.
Click to expand...
It's solletica so, well... when you are solletica, it's just what you do.
 
solletica said:
...while the Blue states can opt out.

This policy is 100% fair since it was the voters in the red states that allowed the Texan idiot that started the whole mess in the Middle East to become Pres--creating a situation where US troops (many of whom never supported dumbya) would either have to remain indefinitely in the ME or else have the whole place descend into the kind of chaos that caused the refugee crisis.

It's also fair because the red states in the US are still the biggest leaches on US taxpayer dollars. . .



Now, as any parent of a spoiled kid knows, the aforementioned kid doesn't like to take responsibility for his/her actions, even when he/she's being fed and clothed 24/7. . .

Likewise, it comes as no surprise that these federal-taxpayer-leaching bush-voting red states are the ones whose governors want to turn down these refugees. . .



--
Obviously the best way to deal w/spoiled kids is to punish them.

So if AL, LA, MS, etc. refuse to accept these refugees, then it's time we taxpayers go up to O and tell him take away all the twinkies they're getting in their lunchboxes.

:)
Click to expand...

well... that was dumb.
 
stonewall50 said:
Large cities are in blue states for the most part, why would anyone want to risk it?
Click to expand...

Maybe the blue states can avoid the attacks by singing "we are the world?"
 
faithful_servant said:
THat's lower part of the Deschutes. Great steelhead fishing!!
Click to expand...

My father was an avid fly fisherman and it was always nice to be able to spend a day with him on the river.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom