bloodsucker said:

---

JollyJoker said:

---

The "messenger"? Is that part of the delusion? That someone told you to bring a message?...So. Isn't THAT your target, then? Not muslims, but fanatic, hatemongering muslim LEADERS?

---

I don't agree with most of Sal's conservative PoV but this is absolutelly true. The European Community had the same problem with brasilian prostitutes ten or twelve years ago, they entered Europe through Portugal, that had friendlyer policies due to historic reasons and then travel allover by bus to work wherever they wanted, for instance.
And strangelly, I am way more worried about us 'importing' their commun folk with their barbaric mentality about women, homosexuals, atheists (me), etc... and giving them the right to vote here then about some beard lunatic calling for jihad from the top of lisbon's musk.

---

markkur said:

---

What if a Nation is in debt up to its eyeballs, to the tune of Trillions of dollars, in front of a "needed" and terribly difficult hard-road ahead of "cutting measures" that will affect all members of that Society? And what about our already currently passing catastrophic debt to the next generation and not only that criminality but adding billions, maybe another Trillion more?

What if that Nation already has the perfect storm blowing towards the existing citizen's welfare program that has "already" been swamped to near destruction?

Ftr, I worked for nearly 40 years of hard damned labor, and other than at the very end, I paid into our Welfare-system for all of those 40 years and received nothing...until I became disabled. My reality? I had to go to court and live in fear for "one and a half years" due to a mandated "auto-reject system" for U.S. taxpayers and was forced, by "existing law" to hand-over nearly 9,000 to a Lawyer, before finally, after three trials, the evidence of both my work-history and my medical-tests proved my case beyond doubt.

While I was treated as an "Undesirable," in this degrading fashion, even after contributing to that same damn system for those4-DECADES}, people that were not even here during the last forty years were handed everything? Seldom was there any discussion about fair-treatment of this Nation's existing citizens. And, carved in granite as fact, my participation in the Welfare State was NOT an option...it was forced on all Americans and still is.

I absolutely believe and practice Charity but that is NOT what "this nation" is about today...it has been in recent decades about buying votes and holding power no matter what any politician says. Trump is not God, nor Lincoln and what matters is that Americans save America for it's existing citizens and get it back into, at least, a "reasonably" sound fiscal-state.

I would prefer our main focus, for a time, rest on getting our own citizens, already living in urban hell-holes, back into a healthy society first, before importing the same sort of problems from the rest of the world, and in essence ensuring our inner-cites continue the slide to chaos. We can help others and should but at some point, any GIVER, must take stock of real circumstance, so the foundation to give...remains.

---

fred79 said:

---

this....we(nor any other country) should EVER worry about people outside it's borders, until the people inside it's borders, are taken care of. i mean, isn't that the entire REASONING behind even HAVING nations, anyway? seriously, wtf? if a nation collapses from inside it's own walls(meaning, without external help), then that nation wasn't meant to ever stand. i realize that the nations across the world help one another in trade and whatnot, but that should NEVER be at the expense of it's own citizens. i mean, why even have nations or borders, if you're just going to let people run rampant all over the globe?

unless... it is to push for a world-government to rise from the chaos created by what is being allowed, and even FOUGHT for. that's the only reasoning i can see, for what's going on with the syrian "refugees" now.

---

fred79 said:

---

we(nor any other country) should EVER worry about people outside it's borders, until the people inside it's borders, are taken care of.

---

Minion said:

---

So solve the poverty and depression and all ailments in your nation before helping anyone else.

That simply means you will never help anyone else who isn't of your nationality.

---

Minion said:

---

It is really worrying that people are so jaded, that children being bombed in war are of no matter to them.

---

Minion said:

---

A 5 year old Syrian refugee was just handcuffed(!) at airport. God damn that TERRORIST! Luckily a big resistance is brewing, and we will not give up. Trump will go to hell for all I care.

---

fred79 said:

---

yeah, the tsa molest, detain, and strip-search people all the time, but suddenly when a kid from a foreign country is handcuffed, the Americans are all snows.

---

Quote:

---

South Dakota Republicans just did something that backfired spectacularly for congressional Republicans earlier this year: They got rid of an independent ethics commission designed to watch over them.

Ethics advocates say the situation in South Dakota is even more egregious than the one in Washington given the independent ethics commission was approved by the voters themselves this November.

Along a mostly party-line vote this week, lawmakers passed a bill that repeals that voter-approved ethics reform package. Among other things, it aimed to set up the state's first ever independent ethics commission and put limits on campaign finance and lobbying access. Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) signed the repeal bill into law on Thursday.

GOP lawmakers claimed voters — who approved the package by 51 percent — were tricked into the reform package. In his December budget address, Daugaard declared that voters were “hoodwinked by scam artists who grossly misrepresented these proposed measures.”

Republicans repealed the bill under a "state of emergency," which prevents voters from putting it back on the ballot in the next election.

Grassroots groups who helped get the ethics package approved were outraged. "It is un-American to reject election results, and the people will not forget this," said Doug Kronaizl, a spokesman with the anti-corruption group Represent South Dakota, which led protests on the normally sleepy state capitol against the repeal effort.

They pointed out that the reform package passed with bipartisan support, because there simply aren't enough Democrats in South Dakota.

“Did I agree with everything in Initiative Measure 22?” said state Senate Minority Leader Billie Sutton (D). “Probably not, but I think it's our job to respect the will of the voters and to fix pieces that may be considered unconstitutional.”

Six Republicans joined with the legislature's 16 Democrats to oppose the repeal, but Republicans have an overwhelming majority in the South Dakota legislature, and Republican lawmakers' opposition to the voter-approved ethics package was fierce.

Days after voters approved the package, 25 GOP lawmakers and a conservative lobbying group challenged the law in court, declaring that voters were tricked into supporting something that could be unconstitutional, for a variety of reasons. A South Dakota judge subsequently paused it from going into effect. Though the judge said some parts of the law could be “saved,” GOP lawmakers decided it was better to start from scratch.

“It would only stand to reason from that logic that we repeal it in its entirety,” state Rep. Larry Rhoden, one of the Republicans leading the repeal effort.

Rhoden said lawmakers are considering replacement ethics legislation and added there was no rush to do something: “We are pretty squeaky clean, and I can say that with a great deal of pride in South Dakota; the ethics among the people that serve the state in the legislature, I would call impeccable.”

The nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity recently ranked South Dakota 47th in the nation for accountability, largely because of its lax lobbying laws. “Little to none of [state legislative and lobbyist interaction] is reported to the public in any detail,” the report said.

The state has been wracked by two major ethics scandals in the past two years: Investigations into misuse of the federal green card program for wealthy immigrant investors and the theft by a private company of more than $1 million of federal grant money to help Native Americans get ready for college.

As a grim aside, people implicated in both scandals either committed suicide or murder or both.

Republicans counter that this new ethics commission would not have been able to stop those scandals because they involved misuse of federal, not state, funds.

The whole saga has echoes of what happened in Washington earlier this year, except with a very different outcome for ethics advocates.

On the eve of Congress's first day back in session in 2017, Republicans in control of the House of Representatives pushed a provision that would have gutted an independent ethics office that investigates them. Republicans abruptly dropped the plan after public backlash from their constituencies and two tsk-tsk tweets from then-President-elect Donald Trump.

Republicans counter that this new ethics commission would not have been able to stop those scandals because they involved misuse of federal, not state, funds.

The whole saga has echoes of what happened in Washington earlier this year, except with a very different outcome for ethics advocates.

On the eve of Congress's first day back in session in 2017, Republicans in control of the House of Representatives pushed a provision that would have gutted an independent ethics office that investigates them. Republicans abruptly dropped the plan after public backlash from their constituencies and two tsk-tsk tweets from then-President-elect Donald Trump.

In South Dakota, proponents of the ethics reform package are out of options to save it. But they are pointing out what, from their vantage point, looks like irony. More than a century ago, South Dakota was the first state in the nation to create a referendum process as a check on its legislature.

This isn't the first time South Dakota lawmakers have tried to change a voter-approved ballot initiative. In 2014, voters passed a ballot measure increasing the minimum wage; GOP lawmakers again claimed voters didn't realize what they had done and passed legislation excluding anyone under 18 from the paycheck boost.

Minimum-wage advocates retaliated, successfully getting a referendum on November's ballot to override the legislature's changes to the law. That referendum passed by 71 percent, and the minimum wage went back up to $8.50 an hour for all workers.

“We think it's pretty clear that the voters don't like when the legislature comes in and messes with our laws,” Kronaizl said.

---

fred79 said:

---

this. so much, this. we(nor any other country) should EVER worry about people outside it's borders, until the people inside it's borders, are taken care of.

---

AlexSpl said:

---

Make America Great Again!

---

Quote:

---

That Obama's daughter?

---

JollyJoker said:

---

...you've killed your share of homosexuals, atheists and pagans and so on. You also used to oppress your women (and I doubt they have full equality now).

---