|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't say that, and I wanted to hear what legitimate points Republicans were making. Chris Christie said something about how even refugee orphans under 5 years old were too much of a threat. That's not a legitimate point to me; that's just fearmongering.
|
On November 19 2015 11:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:45 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the present Muslim refugee population to the Jewish-German refugees from the 1930s is completely asinine. Let's just set aside the complete absence of Ashkenazi suicide bombers and terrorists for a moment and look at the other differences. The Jews were well-established in Europe and had largely assimilated into European society. We're talking about centuries (and in some cases, over a 1000 years) of coexistence. Religious differences aside, European Jews were a people adhering to largely Western values and traditions. You can look at any of the Jewish peoples (Sephardic, for example) and see them doing a pretty damned good job becoming part of their host society and truly assimilating into it despite the ebb and flow of antisemitism. You can't say the same about Muslims, who are not remotely Western, remain insular, and demand things such as their own court systems to administer Sharia law to community members. Jews identity was and is strong in Europe, much more so than in the US. People just don't have a problem with it because they don't happen to be Muslims. Ironically Muslims and Jews in Germany for example have immense common political interest, the latest thing being religious freedom in regards to circumcision.
There's a serious difference between having a cultural identity and being insular.
|
On November 19 2015 11:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:17 RenSC2 wrote:On November 19 2015 10:36 Nyxisto wrote:
or maybe we don't take up only women and children because human rights apply to men too? Is this a serious proposal? If you want to help women and children organize legal channels through which they can get here. Refugees are mostly male because the trip is dangerous and they can use family re-unification laws, it isn't rocket science. You do know you're in the US thread, right? I don't know of too many rafts illegally crossing the Atlantic Ocean with Syrian refugees on it. So while Europe takes in the male refugees that want to flee, we in the United States take in a million or more women and children. That way the women and children aren't left behind in Syria while hoping for family re-unification laws to take effect. Instead, they are brought to America, out of harms way. If they'd then like to go to Europe to re-unify the family, that would be good. Sure, it's sexist, but if you can get past political correctness for a moment, it seems like a palatable solution. Obama mocks Republicans for being afraid of women and children, but that's not what they're afraid of and any thinking human being knows it. He's not being genuine and he's not addressing the real fears. His solution is 10,000 refugees over the next year and it's scary to a lot of Americans. I'm from Illinois, a Democrat state, but we've got a Republican governor now (who has proclaimed that he will reject Syrian immigrants, though he doesn't have legal power to do so) and if the national Democrats don't address real fears, Illinois won't remain blue forever. Mocking the fears with straw men isn't going to get rid of the fears. IL will probably vote for native born Hillary Clinton anyways, but not Florida and Ohio. If a Republican takes those two states and the presidency, then the number of refugees from Syria goes from 10,000 to 0. In my suggestion of only taking women and young children (12 and under), we could take in 100s of thousands or millions of refugees (10-100x more than Obama's proposal) and the fears of terrorism would be gone. Then the only argument would be economic, and that's a much easier argument for the Democrats to make. The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore political correctness on this issue. Women can be terrorists too and children tend to grow up.
Both true. Women can be terrorists, but it's much less likely. They'd still be screened for terrorist connections and rejected if they're believed to be terrorists.
Children grow up, but they'll be growing up with western schooling which should instill western values. Note that I've proposed 12 and under for a reason, not 17 and under. The kids need to be young enough to still be impressionable.
Of course there are still risks, but if you find ways to minimize the risks, then you can do more good without putting yourself in significant danger.
Anyways, it'd be nice if the United States got to be the country that protected middle eastern women and children for once. We've put them in danger too many times in the past couple decades. I'd like some good publicity for once.
|
On November 19 2015 11:50 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I think you're either being naive in the extreme or dishonest. That goes for just about everything I've ever seen you post though, so it's not just limited to this. Out of interest, do you live in a predominantly non white/jewish/asian neighbourhood? Do you have any experience at all living in an area full of disenfranchised youth with no real hope of progressing out of it?
It's ok to admit you are scared and Americans are to incompetent to catch terrorist. You don't need to Aker up excuses as to why you don't want them here, we will understand. It's ok to be afraid.
|
On November 19 2015 11:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't say that, and I wanted to hear what legitimate points Republicans were making. Chris Christie said something about how even refugee orphans under 5 years old were too much of a threat. That's not a legitimate point to me; that's just fearmongering.
If you want to find a legitimately stupid statement theres a republican for everything, but I doubt you haven't seen a few things across the world over the last 15 years or so to indicate there might be problems with mass immigration from 3rd world Islamic nations.
|
On November 19 2015 11:48 farvacola wrote:
Being a coward in public is quite in fashion these days it would seem.
I'll be honest. I really hope that democrats continue with this idiotic line of thought. Even Mother Jones gets it:
Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.
Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster.
Source.
|
On November 19 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:50 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I think you're either being naive in the extreme or dishonest. That goes for just about everything I've ever seen you post though, so it's not just limited to this. Out of interest, do you live in a predominantly non white/jewish/asian neighbourhood? Do you have any experience at all living in an area full of disenfranchised youth with no real hope of progressing out of it? It's ok to admit you are scared and Americans are to incompetent to catch terrorist. You don't need to Aker up excuses as to why you don't want them here, we will understand. It's ok to be afraid.
It's ok to make a straw man as well I suppose.
I don't doubt that with a can do attitude you'll be able to resolve the middle easts problems by importing them to America.
Just like I don't doubt that you will be quick to forget your position in this mess when another group of people don't fit in on American soil.
|
On November 19 2015 11:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:48 farvacola wrote:
Being a coward in public is quite in fashion these days it would seem. I'll be honest. I really hope that democrats continue with this idiotic line of thought. Even Mother Jones gets it: Show nested quote +Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.
Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster. Source.
No one in the thread is saying screening is bad. We are opposing the people who say the refugee number should be zero.
|
Anyone that pins claims of cowardice to democrats alone isn't paying any attention. Many of the loudest call outs are coming from right wing religious folk. And no, deciding to give Mother Jones a pass for the day because it fits with your worldview doesn't really count as an evidentiary reach across the aisle 
|
On November 19 2015 11:55 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:50 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I think you're either being naive in the extreme or dishonest. That goes for just about everything I've ever seen you post though, so it's not just limited to this. Out of interest, do you live in a predominantly non white/jewish/asian neighbourhood? Do you have any experience at all living in an area full of disenfranchised youth with no real hope of progressing out of it? It's ok to admit you are scared and Americans are to incompetent to catch terrorist. You don't need to Aker up excuses as to why you don't want them here, we will understand. It's ok to be afraid. It's ok to make a straw man as well I suppose. I don't doubt that with a can do attitude you'll be able to resolve the middle easts problems by importing them to America.
Part of it would be never to listen to fearmongers like yourself.
|
On November 19 2015 11:55 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:50 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I think you're either being naive in the extreme or dishonest. That goes for just about everything I've ever seen you post though, so it's not just limited to this. Out of interest, do you live in a predominantly non white/jewish/asian neighbourhood? Do you have any experience at all living in an area full of disenfranchised youth with no real hope of progressing out of it? It's ok to admit you are scared and Americans are to incompetent to catch terrorist. You don't need to Aker up excuses as to why you don't want them here, we will understand. It's ok to be afraid. It's ok to make a straw man as well I suppose. I don't doubt that with a can do attitude you'll be able to resolve the middle easts problems by importing them to America.
Now be nice. His SJW disorder prevents him from grasping and attempting to reconcile basic facts that don't fit within a hyper politically correct narrative. We should show more tolerance and understanding.
|
On November 19 2015 11:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 farvacola wrote:
Being a coward in public is quite in fashion these days it would seem. I'll be honest. I really hope that democrats continue with this idiotic line of thought. Even Mother Jones gets it: Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.
Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster. Source. No one in the thread is saying screening is bad. We are opposing the people who say the refugee number should be zero.
What number do you think it should be? And in 10 years time when it's not ISIS causing issues but some other group in some other nation and history repeats itself what number then?
Just saying, 50000 people is a drop in the bucket, and borderline meaningless.
On November 19 2015 11:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:55 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:50 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I think you're either being naive in the extreme or dishonest. That goes for just about everything I've ever seen you post though, so it's not just limited to this. Out of interest, do you live in a predominantly non white/jewish/asian neighbourhood? Do you have any experience at all living in an area full of disenfranchised youth with no real hope of progressing out of it? It's ok to admit you are scared and Americans are to incompetent to catch terrorist. You don't need to Aker up excuses as to why you don't want them here, we will understand. It's ok to be afraid. It's ok to make a straw man as well I suppose. I don't doubt that with a can do attitude you'll be able to resolve the middle easts problems by importing them to America. Part of it would be never to listen to fearmongers like yourself.
Fear mongering would be me blowing shit up.
|
On November 19 2015 11:57 farvacola wrote:Anyone that pins claims of cowardice to democrats alone isn't paying any attention. Many of the loudest call outs are coming from right wing religious folk. And no, deciding to give Mother Jones a pass for the day because it fits with your worldview doesn't really count as an evidentiary reach across the aisle
Hey, just because I don't think much of a particular news outfit (or person) doesn't mean that I don't think that they occasionally have valid points. Even a broken clock is right twice per day.
|
On November 19 2015 11:54 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't say that, and I wanted to hear what legitimate points Republicans were making. Chris Christie said something about how even refugee orphans under 5 years old were too much of a threat. That's not a legitimate point to me; that's just fearmongering. If you want to find a legitimately stupid statement theres a republican for everything, but I doubt you haven't seen a few things across the world over the last 15 years or so to indicate there might be problems with mass immigration from 3rd world Islamic nations.
That's really not an answer to my question though :/
|
On November 19 2015 11:45 xDaunt wrote:
Comparing the present Muslim refugee population to the Jewish-German refugees from the 1930s is completely asinine. Let's just set aside the complete absence of Ashkenazi suicide bombers and terrorists for a moment and look at the other differences. The Jews were well-established in Europe and had largely assimilated into European society. We're talking about centuries (and in some cases, over a 1000 years) of coexistence. Religious differences aside, European Jews were a people adhering to largely Western values and traditions. You can look at any of the Jewish peoples (Sephardic, for example) and see them doing a pretty damned good job becoming part of their host society and truly assimilating into it despite the ebb and flow of antisemitism. You can't say the same about Muslims, who are not remotely Western, remain insular, and demand things such as their own court systems to administer Sharia law to community members.
You have managed to point out a whole load of reasons for why the fearmongering about Jewish refugees in the late 1930s was completely assinine, so I'm very glad you've gotten halfway to reaching the conclusion that the current fearmongering about Muslim refugees will be seen as equally assinine (and harmful) when we can reflect back on this tumultuous time.
I just hope enough people are as enlightened as you and realize this as well, so we can actually do something about this refugee crisis by helping innocent people to start a new life away from the terror and misery they used to call home.
|
On November 19 2015 12:00 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:56 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 farvacola wrote:
Being a coward in public is quite in fashion these days it would seem. I'll be honest. I really hope that democrats continue with this idiotic line of thought. Even Mother Jones gets it: Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.
Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster. Source. No one in the thread is saying screening is bad. We are opposing the people who say the refugee number should be zero. What number do you think it should be? And in 10 years time when it's not ISIS causing issues but some other group in some other nation and history repeats itself what number then? Just saying, 50000 people is a drop in the bucket, and borderline meaningless. Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:58 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:55 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:50 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:
[quote]
The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants.
However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society.
Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed.
I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I think you're either being naive in the extreme or dishonest. That goes for just about everything I've ever seen you post though, so it's not just limited to this. Out of interest, do you live in a predominantly non white/jewish/asian neighbourhood? Do you have any experience at all living in an area full of disenfranchised youth with no real hope of progressing out of it? It's ok to admit you are scared and Americans are to incompetent to catch terrorist. You don't need to Aker up excuses as to why you don't want them here, we will understand. It's ok to be afraid. It's ok to make a straw man as well I suppose. I don't doubt that with a can do attitude you'll be able to resolve the middle easts problems by importing them to America. Part of it would be never to listen to fearmongers like yourself. Fear mongering would be me blowing shit up.
They could bring over 1 million and I wouldn't care. My home town hosted refugees from other wars and I live near a Muslim community. I'm not afraid.
|
On November 19 2015 11:46 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:17 RenSC2 wrote:
The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore political correctness on this issue. Respecting human rights is "political correctness", now? Let me fix your post: "The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore any shred of human decency and empathy you might have left, and fully embrace bigotry and right-wing xenophobic myths".
So proposing that we take in more immigrants than currently proposed is "ignoring any shred of human decency and empathy"? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Reading comprehension fail? Logic fail?
I suggest that we can do the most good as a country by taking in the women and children. Setting up planes or ships and getting those women and children across the Atlantic and setting them up in America.
If we can get past the sexism of the solution, it actually ends up being a better solution for everyone... the able bodied men fleeing to Europe aren't leaving their mothers/sisters/wives/children in a warzone on the hopes that they'll eventually get proper clearance. Instead, those men know that their families are safe in America and can make the journey to Europe with confidence or stay and fight with confidence.
|
On November 19 2015 12:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 12:00 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:56 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 farvacola wrote:
Being a coward in public is quite in fashion these days it would seem. I'll be honest. I really hope that democrats continue with this idiotic line of thought. Even Mother Jones gets it: Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
The liberal response to this should be far more measured. We should support tight screening. Never mind that screening is already pretty tight. We should highlight the fact that we're accepting a pretty modest number of refugees. In general, we should act like this is a legitimate thing to be concerned about and then work from there.
Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong. Ordinary people see the refugees as a common sense thing to be concerned about. We shouldn't respond by essentially calling them idiots. That way lies electoral disaster. Source. No one in the thread is saying screening is bad. We are opposing the people who say the refugee number should be zero. What number do you think it should be? And in 10 years time when it's not ISIS causing issues but some other group in some other nation and history repeats itself what number then? Just saying, 50000 people is a drop in the bucket, and borderline meaningless. On November 19 2015 11:58 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:55 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:52 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:50 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I think you're either being naive in the extreme or dishonest. That goes for just about everything I've ever seen you post though, so it's not just limited to this. Out of interest, do you live in a predominantly non white/jewish/asian neighbourhood? Do you have any experience at all living in an area full of disenfranchised youth with no real hope of progressing out of it? It's ok to admit you are scared and Americans are to incompetent to catch terrorist. You don't need to Aker up excuses as to why you don't want them here, we will understand. It's ok to be afraid. It's ok to make a straw man as well I suppose. I don't doubt that with a can do attitude you'll be able to resolve the middle easts problems by importing them to America. Part of it would be never to listen to fearmongers like yourself. Fear mongering would be me blowing shit up. They could bring over 1 million and I wouldn't care. My home town hosted refugees from other wars and I live near a Muslim community. I'm not afraid.
Ok, concrete numbers of 1 million Syrian refugees. Have fun I suppose.
|
On November 19 2015 12:07 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:46 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2015 11:17 RenSC2 wrote:
The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore political correctness on this issue. Respecting human rights is "political correctness", now? Let me fix your post: "The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore any shred of human decency and empathy you might have left, and fully embrace bigotry and right-wing xenophobic myths". So proposing that we take in more immigrants than currently proposed is "ignoring any shred of human decency and empathy"? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Reading comprehension fail? Logic fail? I suggest that we can do the most good as a country by taking in the women and children. Setting up planes or ships and getting those women and children across the Atlantic and setting them up in America. If we can get past the sexism of the solution, it actually ends up being a better solution for everyone... the able bodied men fleeing to Europe aren't leaving their mothers/sisters/wives/children in a warzone on the hopes that they'll eventually get proper clearance. Instead, those men know that their families are safe in America and can make the journey to Europe with confidence or stay and fight with confidence.
Mhm, Im sure all those families you're proposing to split in half see it your way too.
|
On November 19 2015 12:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 12:07 RenSC2 wrote:On November 19 2015 11:46 kwizach wrote:On November 19 2015 11:17 RenSC2 wrote:
The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore political correctness on this issue. Respecting human rights is "political correctness", now? Let me fix your post: "The only thing it takes to get over this roadblock is to ignore any shred of human decency and empathy you might have left, and fully embrace bigotry and right-wing xenophobic myths". So proposing that we take in more immigrants than currently proposed is "ignoring any shred of human decency and empathy"? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Reading comprehension fail? Logic fail? I suggest that we can do the most good as a country by taking in the women and children. Setting up planes or ships and getting those women and children across the Atlantic and setting them up in America. If we can get past the sexism of the solution, it actually ends up being a better solution for everyone... the able bodied men fleeing to Europe aren't leaving their mothers/sisters/wives/children in a warzone on the hopes that they'll eventually get proper clearance. Instead, those men know that their families are safe in America and can make the journey to Europe with confidence or stay and fight with confidence. Mhm, Im sure all those families you're proposing to split in half see it your way too.
They don't seem to mind, 70% of the people going to Europe are men. 15% women, 15% children. Such a family!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
