Top Iman Confirms Plan To Use Refugee Crisis To Conquer Europe

Yeah please answer trendlover's great question. If financial drain is such a huge concern of yours, maybe we should just kick out all the criminals filling up our prisons while we're at (including many many whites). These low lives are just draining my pockets. How's that for math, Newton?
Just answered it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Because American criminals are raping and looting, we should import foreigners who will abuse the system too? They ought to get a fair shake to fuck us too? Are you braindead??
 
Just answered it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Because American criminals are raping and looting, we should import foreigners who will abuse the system too? They ought to get a fair shake to fuck us too? Are you braindead??

When did I make a connection between letting the refugees in and kicking out criminals? I said if the money was such a concern, don't twist words around.

At least the refugees will go on to do great intellectual things to move the country forward and then make up for it by paying taxes. Have you not realized there are doctors and lawyers who practiced in their countries among the refugees? What are the criminals doing but really squeezing our pockets. At least the refugees can become a nice investment.
 
i like the idea of helping. My objection is political and structural.

I would like to see lower taxes and a better economy first.
And, I have a major problem with creating more votes for democrats.
This is what the cronies want... to drown out votes with govt takers so the working class has to stay subservient to those who have access to the Federal Reserves money creation.

Until you understand this... you don't understand was is going on in govt, who is running it and who is owning it.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

More than half of the nation's immigrants receive some kind of government welfare, a figure that's far higher than the native-born population's, according to a report to be released Wednesday.

About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.

Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

The findings are sure to fuel debate on the presidential campaign trail as Republican candidates focus on changing the nation's immigration laws, from calls for mass deportations to ending birthright citizenship.

With respect to blondes, I'll wager on the amount of times not the amount of women.
 
When did I make a connection between letting the refugees in and kicking out criminals? I said if the money was such a concern, don't twist words around.

At least the refugees will go on to do great intellectual things to move the country forward and then make up for it by paying taxes. Have you not realized there are doctors and lawyers who practiced in their countries among the refugees? What are the criminals doing but really squeezing our pockets. At least the refugees can become a nice investment.
My answer to that is we have to shoulder our own criminals. We cannot revoke citizenship of American citizens who are criminals. Trendlover implied we should let the refugees in since many americans are criminals anyway. You asked me to answer his question. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Sure, some of the refugees are competent and skilled. The problem is most of these refugees are economic migrants. 80% are not Syrian. And none of them are stopping in peaceful, eastern european states. They are all headed for the heavy welfare states of northern europe. Based on that evidence alone, most of the refugees are liars and seeking welfare. If theres a way to verify the background of these migrants, sure, let the accomplished lawyers, doctors, professors, trades people in. That's fine. We need people like that. But the news reports simply don't bear those facts out . The vast majority of these refugees are not syrian and they are not escaping war. They are looking to get on welfare. Most are young men. It's a recipe for disaster.
 
i like the idea of helping. My objection is political and structural.

I would like to see lower taxes and a better economy first.
And, I have a major problem with creating more votes for democrats.
This is what the cronies want... to drown out votes with govt takers so the working class has to stay subservient to those who have access to the Federal Reserves money creation.

Until you understand this... you don't understand was is going on in govt, who is running it and who is owning it.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

More than half of the nation's immigrants receive some kind of government welfare, a figure that's far higher than the native-born population's, according to a report to be released Wednesday.

About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.

Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

The findings are sure to fuel debate on the presidential campaign trail as Republican candidates focus on changing the nation's immigration laws, from calls for mass deportations to ending birthright citizenship.

Thanks for posting that. Ultimately, Americans get the Government they want and deserve. If Americans vote for endless welfare and immigration for unqualified people, then thats what we'll get. I say if people want to be charitable, do it on an individual level. Its immoral for the government to act charitably with taxpayer money.
 
Sheikh Muhammad Ayed should be allowed to make his case to congress. If we're going to let a Christian fanatic speak before congress, then why not a Muslim? And yes, I'm 100% serious.
The Pope has no business speaking to our congress, nor does any other leader of organized religion. If we're going to let one do this, then we must let them all, otherwise we are choosing a Christian Theocracy form of government, in which case one can understand the hostility of Radical Islam. It's a mistake, a grave one, for our government to be choosing on religion over another.
 
Sheikh Muhammad Ayed should be allowed to make his case to congress. If we're going to let a Christian fanatic speak before congress, then why not a Muslim? And yes, I'm 100% serious.
The Pope has no business speaking to our congress, nor does any other leader of organized religion. If we're going to let one do this, then we must let them all, otherwise we are choosing a Christian Theocracy form of government, in which case one can understand the hostility of Radical Islam. It's a mistake, a grave one, for our government to be choosing on religion over another.
maybe a new tradition, Religious Leader Thursday. Write your congressman and urge him to attend when your favorite tv evangelist is making a pitch
 
Back
Top