You should evaluate this remark in context of all domestic mass shootings and terror events.

Common sense. Shouldn't have to spell out the dangers of countries who
support the terrorism that wants to do us in.

OK. I evaluated my remark in the context of your words in this thread about vetting refugees: "If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win." And: "Taking irrational action at the border to discriminate against Islam is not only going to be ineffective it's going drive self radicalization." There's a flip side to both of those propositions that you choose not to recognize, but you slavishly stick only to the administration talking points.

After evaluating my remark within its proper context, my remark stands.

Actually, you didn't ask. You just continue to say things to detract from the fact that you can't support your argument here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The biggest supporter of terrorism is the opponent who fuels the fire of jihad. Every bomb we drop is just fertilizer for more hate of the west. So in a way, we are the biggest funders of terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Vetting refugees - Look at how Europe turned itself into a third world country. I say we stay the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of it and mind our own business. They need refuge, let them go to Oman or UAE, Dubai etc. Those mf'ers have bank! Let them help themselves and we'll watch from a safe distance.

The Flowers By Irene guys are robots. They get told go they go. They get told stop they stop. The probably stopped on the kid in Orlando because they were giving him boo boo feelings on the inside.

"So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil"

Spence, I'll do you one better...I'm not aware of a Muslim immigrant who has gotten a parking ticket. But I don't know why that matters. So we should wait until it happens, and THEN devise a policy to prevent it?

My point was this...it's much easier for the FBI to investigate an American citizen, than it is for anyone, in any agency, to investigate someone from a mountaintop village which has no electricity or computers. So forgive me if I'm not relieved when Obama says "don't worry, we are vetting these people".

So we should leave them alone. That's brilliant.

Totally different processes.

As I said, I agree. One process (FBI vetting citizens) is a lot easier. And they still failed miserably in teh case of the Orlando guy.

You said that if we implement bad policies, terrorists win. How does the removal of second amendment rights fit into that argument?

I'd think vetting citizens is probably a lot harder. There are significant protections that limit how far the FBI can go without violating a presumption of innocence. Refugees applying for UN sponsored status have no such protections and face a rigorous process that goes well beyond the scope of the FBI.

Who is calling for the removal of second amendment rights?

Bonkers.

We have publicly available data on citizens - birth records, immunization records, criminal records, that the FBI can easily get. Hell, I can look up someone's arrest record online.

Please tell me, Spence, how do we vet someone from a village with no computers, no schools, no jails, etc? Other than asking each refugee, "do you promise not to kill anyone", how the hell do you confirm anything?

Have fun with that.

What good is that against someone with a clean record who can walk into a gun store and pick up some weapons?

I don't think you understand the process.

I can tell you who,
pretty much any and all of the politicians who are trying to infringe our rights with further gun control legislation seeing as we already have enough laws on the books and they need to be enforced before any more infringement happens. That includes Senator Warren to begin with and all the rest who choose to take the lazy approach to issues of violence.

Yea, and left-wing nuts like four star Generals McChrystal and Petraeus who don't think the public has a rational need for a 223 semi auto configured with assault features.

What freaks.

https://d.justpo.st/media/images/201...fd8fcc4738.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Inverse and it will make sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Freaks? Is this some new Progressive buzzword which is supposed to make us all meekly surrender to how right you are? Progressives are not "nuts" or "freaks." They are very rational. They are extremely persistent. And they are totally full their supposedly superior wisdom. Which makes one wonder why they need buzzwords to convince us of that wisdom. And why they need to change the meaning of words to give their arguments the appearance of truth.

And they told us from their beginning that the Constitution is an impediment to the way they must govern. They have said EXACTLY so IN THEIR OWN WORDS. But the rest of us, of course, are too ignorant of how right they are, how backward we are, and how better we and the rest of the world would be if we, and the Constitution, would just get out of their way so they could lead us into their Brave New World.

So, YES, the Progressives (mostly Democrats) want to abolish the Second Amendment. It is a prominent piece of what remains of the Constitution after they have eviscerated most of the rest. They intend, piece by piece, to finish the job and are free to rule us by fiat, fancied over with phony Orwellian newspeak. The fact that you cannot see that is evidence, as you accused Jim re the vetting process, that you don't understand the process. You don't understand the Constitutional process, nor the process by which it is being dismantled. And you simply accept strings of pretty sounding words and phrases which actually destroy that process. And, somehow, when people like Petraeus, a traitor, or HRC, a psychopathic liar, or Obama, a critic of the Constitution, say those words and phrases, you swoon over them like a subdued lover.

But your love affair is, as love affairs usually are, blind. And you think you understand everything the object of your infatuation does or says. You think you "understand" the vetting process because its string of words makes it so. If we just follow the words, we have little to fear. Oh, how Progressive words constantly change, or are disobeyed, or imperfectly followed. And no rational criticism, even as Jim has provided, are of any consequence. Because the words make the process so. You are a slave to Progressive strings of words. Even though they fly in the face of experience.

That's exactly why I asked you to explain it to me. And you didn't. Because you can't. As always, you take it on faith that any plan implemented by anyone with a (D) after their name, must necessarily be brilliant. Always, always, always.

We have more ability to paint a quick and accurate picture of a citizen living here, than we do about someone who lives in a remote village in the Middle East. No rational person would deny that. I have a background check done on any new employee. I can look up your criminal record online in 5 minutes. It's not perfect obviously, but it's a hell of a lot more available than background info on someone from a place that has never had electricity to send data, or even a filing cabinet to store paper records.

But you would say, details, shme-tails.

I posted a link that details the entire vetting process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

U.S. Citizen:

Birth Certificate = Verify Age
Social Security Card = Verify Employment History
Drivers License = Driving Record/Insurance Issues/Infractions
Credit Cards = Credit History/Shopping History
Bank Accounts = Financial History/Transactions/

Interview Employers, Neighbors, Known Associates.
Check Facebook, Twitter, and other Social Media footprints


Syrian Refugee:

No Birth Certificate = Can't verify Age
No Social Security Card = Can't verify Identity
No Drivers License = Can't verify Identity
No Credit Cards
No Bank Accounts
No Way to verify Work History
No Way to interview Employers, Neighbors, or Known Associates

But he can say his name is Bob and he promises to behave....you're right, that is sooooo much easier.

I'll just google Bob and see if I can find his facebook account.... :rolleyes:

There is no doubt that we have had a significant increase in the amount of immigrants allowed to come into this country wether on work visas or as refugees . Not to mention the illegal immigrants that are allowed to stay and continue coming .
My question is why and how does it benefit this country ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You also posted a link saying that this was the act of a jilted lover, not terrorism.

Let's dive into that a bit. We have the shooter's own words, HIS OWN WORDS, saying that he did what he did, for Allah. Not god enough for you.

We have a 3rd party who says it was a romantic squabble. And that 3rd party declaration, in your mind, has more credibility than what the shooter himself confessed.

Cue the 'twilight zone' music.

You always choose politics over facts and common sense. Always, always, always. Anything that shields your beloved from criticism.

Gee, when you put it that way...

It's kind of fun watching Spence unravel between this thread and the caterpillar one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe we should reopen the Bengazi thread
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

....or the E-Mail server thread

Right now he's locked in the bathroom sitting in the shower, clutching his knees to his chest and rocking back and forth while his wife is banging on the door and yelling at him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're missing the point. The FBI can't access most of that without a warrant. You also make it sound like the vetting process is totally open, it's not...read up.

Sure, I'd like to hear your thoughts about Trey Gowdy spending 7 million taxpayer dollars to uncover essentially no new information.

I think it's quite reasonable to believe someone with life or mental issues could be drawn to extremism and reach a breaking point. Looks like it happened with Hassan at Ft Hood and quite possibly here.

Think like a detective Jim...

No, You're missing the point(s)

A) I'm already a citizen so, yeah you need a warrant due to my constitutional rights. but since I'm already a citizen I don't need to apply to come here and/or become a citizen. That makes that entire argument moot

B) If you want to come here and become a citizen, you should be voluntarily providing me with all that information so that I can properly vet you.

C) If you can't voluntarily provide that information so we can vet you, because none of it exists or is accessible....then how do we successfully vet you? (here's a hint: You can't)

No, you are missing the point. Because whatever the FBI can access even without a warrant, is more than anyone can access about a refugee from Syria who lived in a village with no information to even try to access.

It's obvious common sense. If we can't detect terrorists among our own citizens, only you would say it's easier to weed out terrorists from a crowd of Middle Eastern refugees, when we probably can't even confirm their identity, let alone their background, in some cases.

Yes, it's possible. But what evidence is there, that's more compelling than the man's own confession?

Think like someone who isn't in love with Obama, Spence...

Think of how little we would have known without Trey . You would have liked that .
We know now that they intentionally didn't provide help . Speaks volumes unless you hold your fingers in your ears . And didn't those 4 dead Americans deserve due diligence ?
Also I believe the FBI has spent more on the email scandal , which could have been avoided if she wasn't corrupt .
7 million ? Pennies compared to a yearly Martha's Vinyard vaca for your spank buddy . 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sooo....Lets read up...shall we. this is the procedure from your link.

Step 1: Collects identifying documents (as was mentioned, none exist)
Collect Bio Data: Name, Address, Birthday, Place of Birth (No Documents exist to VERIFY any of this information)

Collect Biometrics: Iris Scans (Newsflash, this is to help identify them for future ID in case of an issue, There is NOTHING that exists that can link them to past actions)


Step 2: Collects Identifying Documents (Huh, did these all of a sudden magically appear)

Create an Applicant File. (Ooooohhh now we mean business, we have an actual folder that has all of your supposed unverified information on it)


Step 3: US Security Agencies screen the Candidate (so they use all the unverified data collected to see if any flags pop, but since the data could be false.....everything looks good)


Step 4: The Interviews are conducted. (This is where they promise to work and play well with others)


Step 5: Fingerprints are screened (again if there is no database to bounce these against then they are good)


....and according to your link this is the end of the Security portion of the vetting process.

do I need to go on......point is....if the initial information is false, the entire process they follow is built upon false data.

But the graphic they used is a might purty....so I can see where you might be lulled into a false sense of security.

Well I don't know about you, but that puts my mind at ease...

As you pointed out, all this presumes that (1) records exist on these people, and that (2) there is a mechanism for verifying said records.

Oh yes, that interview, that must really cut down on terror. Because as we all know, a terrorist would never fail to announce his intentions ahead of time.

I love it, 7 investigations not including the last and there's no due diligence...amazing.

As for intentionally not providing help I have no idea what you're talking about.

How many of the 7 previous hearings, did Hilary testify at?

Truthfully ....0
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device