|
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 13:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:43 Kickstart wrote:
They wouldn't if people turned up to vote. 30% voter turnout and of that 30% you can be sure the vast majority are angry old citizens who are nostalgic about the glory days of america and want to see her great again.
That's why republicans won't win the presidency, because people will show up and vote for that election. 30%? That's terrible. I thought out 60% numbers were bad in past elections (even our high water mark this election isn't THAT great, except my region had a super high turn out when compared nationally.) If most of the power is supposed to reside at the State level, how is voter turn out so low? 
Most states have elections that happen at the same time as federal ones, though I'm not sure I understand your question. And 30% is very low. It's a little abnormal.
|
On November 19 2015 13:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:43 Kickstart wrote:
They wouldn't if people turned up to vote. 30% voter turnout and of that 30% you can be sure the vast majority are angry old citizens who are nostalgic about the glory days of america and want to see her great again.
That's why republicans won't win the presidency, because people will show up and vote for that election. 30%? That's terrible. I thought out 60% numbers were bad in past elections (even our high water mark this election isn't THAT great, except my region had a super high turn out when compared nationally.) If most of the power is supposed to reside at the State level, how is voter turn out so low?
Disillusionment with the political process and politicians at large, leading to apathy, that then feeds back into the disillusionment.
Piled on to being busy trying to live check to check where looking into how corrupt and ignorant your local politicians are is an exercise in futility in that they're almost all terrible and few localities have much of an option in the first place.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
The feminist in me needs to point out that women are by no means harmless, nor less likely to be terrorists. The pragmatist would also like to point out that the women will be less educated, less capable of joining the work force and more vulnerable to criminal exploitation. You'd be creating a refugee population destined for poverty, exploitation and multigenerational crime. Also the kids are unlikely to be thrilled by their families being forcibly broken up by the US.
If we wish to screen out all terrorists with aggressive screening then why not let in only Christians or Alawites or whatever with a religious test that would be sacrilegious to ISIS.
|
On November 19 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 13:39 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2015 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 12:14 Mercy13 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. This is actually a really good point. It's fun to get angry and yell at people on the internet, but if we want to change hearts and mind about refugees or Muslims in general, it would probably help to acknowledge their concerns even if they aren't very logical. Do you know who's laughing all of the way to the political bank right now? Donald Trump. This refugee issue is right in the wheelhouse of his immigration narrative. More importantly, it's an issue on which Trump is going to receive popular support. Between the evolution of the immigration debate in America and the development of rabid anti-political establishment sentiments in the electorate, I'm starting to wonder whether it is Trump's destiny to be president. Regardless of whether its due to serendipity of true political acumen, Trump has been at the cutting edge of these issues, which has fueled his success so far. It won't last, but you're right his consistent appeals to fear and bigotry will make him essentially untouchable in the primary. Hope you like Trump as he's probably going to win the Republican nomination. Would be a shame if 6 months from now we are hearing about how if only Republicans had nominated a "real conservative" (as if their constant refusal to nominate one isn't indicative that "conservatives" have little-no sway in the Republican party) they wouldn't be getting trounced nationally. As if the faults highlighted over a general wouldn't have been easily knowable prior, but republicans just didn't care. EDIT: Just a friendly reminder, Bernie Sanders is already beating Trump in a heads up race. What does this mean? A) conservatives don't think they control the party, it's the liberals who seem to think the "crazies" run it. B) Trounced by whom? Aside from the presidency, they control more of the national, state, and local government than any time in recent memory. There's an old rumor that if only Republicans nominated a conservative they would win a presidential race, which is imo delusional as conservatives can't even win their primary. Trounced in the presidential election. Oh, so you meant past/future. Not current. I was confused by "getting trounced."
Trump or a "hard line true conservative" cannot win the presidency. They have a hard time in Senate races in some red states. There are these minorities that hard line conservatives can't win, like blacks, Hispanics and the non-minority group of women. Plus independents.
I would also point out that many experts have said the electoral map looks bad for the Republicans next election.
|
Because Plansix and his fellow sjw's would be rioting in the streets at such flagrant Islamophobia.
Just kidding they need to march through a library at a top College first.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 19 2015 10:42 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 10:27 Plansix wrote:
I would link the articles from the 1938 where we sent the Jewish refugees back to the Nazis for the same reasons and fears, but people would just claim it's totally different this time. Just like the mayor who said it was justified not accepting them by citing the Japanese internment camps as a good decision. Did the Jewish refugees at that point have a long storied history of blowing things up, remaining on welfare, and in general not integrating into society? I think it's a fairly terrible comparison to make.
Jewish men at the time had a long history of sacrificing little Christian children in their blood rites. Also controlling all the money. They were about as popular as Muslims are today, and with about as much justification. Sure, every Muslim was responsible personally for 9/11 but let's not forget that WW1 was a Jewish conspiracy and every Jew unanimously voted to start WW1.
|
On November 19 2015 13:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2015 13:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 13:39 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2015 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 12:14 Mercy13 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. This is actually a really good point. It's fun to get angry and yell at people on the internet, but if we want to change hearts and mind about refugees or Muslims in general, it would probably help to acknowledge their concerns even if they aren't very logical. Do you know who's laughing all of the way to the political bank right now? Donald Trump. This refugee issue is right in the wheelhouse of his immigration narrative. More importantly, it's an issue on which Trump is going to receive popular support. Between the evolution of the immigration debate in America and the development of rabid anti-political establishment sentiments in the electorate, I'm starting to wonder whether it is Trump's destiny to be president. Regardless of whether its due to serendipity of true political acumen, Trump has been at the cutting edge of these issues, which has fueled his success so far. It won't last, but you're right his consistent appeals to fear and bigotry will make him essentially untouchable in the primary. Hope you like Trump as he's probably going to win the Republican nomination. Would be a shame if 6 months from now we are hearing about how if only Republicans had nominated a "real conservative" (as if their constant refusal to nominate one isn't indicative that "conservatives" have little-no sway in the Republican party) they wouldn't be getting trounced nationally. As if the faults highlighted over a general wouldn't have been easily knowable prior, but republicans just didn't care. EDIT: Just a friendly reminder, Bernie Sanders is already beating Trump in a heads up race. What does this mean? A) conservatives don't think they control the party, it's the liberals who seem to think the "crazies" run it. B) Trounced by whom? Aside from the presidency, they control more of the national, state, and local government than any time in recent memory. There's an old rumor that if only Republicans nominated a conservative they would win a presidential race, which is imo delusional as conservatives can't even win their primary. Trounced in the presidential election. Oh, so you meant past/future. Not current. I was confused by "getting trounced." Trump or a "hard line true conservative" cannot win the presidency. They have a hard time in Senate races in some red states. There are these minorities that hard line conservatives can't win, like blacks, Hispanics and the non-minority group of women. Plus independents. I would also point out that many experts have said the electoral map looks bad for the Republicans next election.
Something that astounded me was how many Mexicans seemed to love Trump when I was in Texas last month.
|
On November 19 2015 13:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 10:42 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 10:27 Plansix wrote:
I would link the articles from the 1938 where we sent the Jewish refugees back to the Nazis for the same reasons and fears, but people would just claim it's totally different this time. Just like the mayor who said it was justified not accepting them by citing the Japanese internment camps as a good decision. Did the Jewish refugees at that point have a long storied history of blowing things up, remaining on welfare, and in general not integrating into society? I think it's a fairly terrible comparison to make. Jewish men at the time had a long history of sacrificing little Christian children in their blood rites. Also controlling all the money. They were about as popular as Muslims are today, and with about as much justification. Sure, every Muslim was responsible personally for 9/11 but let's not forget that WW1 was a Jewish conspiracy and every Jew unanimously voted to start WW1.
I think weird conspiracies are a little different to being video taped shooting up a street and football field, as well as coming from an incredibly unstable part of the world.
|
On November 19 2015 13:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2015 13:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 13:39 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2015 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 12:14 Mercy13 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. This is actually a really good point. It's fun to get angry and yell at people on the internet, but if we want to change hearts and mind about refugees or Muslims in general, it would probably help to acknowledge their concerns even if they aren't very logical. Do you know who's laughing all of the way to the political bank right now? Donald Trump. This refugee issue is right in the wheelhouse of his immigration narrative. More importantly, it's an issue on which Trump is going to receive popular support. Between the evolution of the immigration debate in America and the development of rabid anti-political establishment sentiments in the electorate, I'm starting to wonder whether it is Trump's destiny to be president. Regardless of whether its due to serendipity of true political acumen, Trump has been at the cutting edge of these issues, which has fueled his success so far. It won't last, but you're right his consistent appeals to fear and bigotry will make him essentially untouchable in the primary. Hope you like Trump as he's probably going to win the Republican nomination. Would be a shame if 6 months from now we are hearing about how if only Republicans had nominated a "real conservative" (as if their constant refusal to nominate one isn't indicative that "conservatives" have little-no sway in the Republican party) they wouldn't be getting trounced nationally. As if the faults highlighted over a general wouldn't have been easily knowable prior, but republicans just didn't care. EDIT: Just a friendly reminder, Bernie Sanders is already beating Trump in a heads up race. What does this mean? A) conservatives don't think they control the party, it's the liberals who seem to think the "crazies" run it. B) Trounced by whom? Aside from the presidency, they control more of the national, state, and local government than any time in recent memory. There's an old rumor that if only Republicans nominated a conservative they would win a presidential race, which is imo delusional as conservatives can't even win their primary. Trounced in the presidential election. Oh, so you meant past/future. Not current. I was confused by "getting trounced." Trump or a "hard line true conservative" cannot win the presidency. They have a hard time in Senate races in some red states. There are these minorities that hard line conservatives can't win, like blacks, Hispanics and the non-minority group of women. Plus independents. I would also point out that many experts have said the electoral map looks bad for the Republicans next election.
As much as I don't want Hillary to win it would be funny to hear the explanations of how Republicans could of lost to Obama 2x and Hillary if they are remotely as bad as their party thinks they are. Somehow I suspect it still wouldn't be that there is something wrong with their ideas not just their messaging.
|
On November 19 2015 13:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:54 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 13:49 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2015 13:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 13:39 Introvert wrote:On November 19 2015 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 19 2015 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 12:14 Mercy13 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. This is actually a really good point. It's fun to get angry and yell at people on the internet, but if we want to change hearts and mind about refugees or Muslims in general, it would probably help to acknowledge their concerns even if they aren't very logical. Do you know who's laughing all of the way to the political bank right now? Donald Trump. This refugee issue is right in the wheelhouse of his immigration narrative. More importantly, it's an issue on which Trump is going to receive popular support. Between the evolution of the immigration debate in America and the development of rabid anti-political establishment sentiments in the electorate, I'm starting to wonder whether it is Trump's destiny to be president. Regardless of whether its due to serendipity of true political acumen, Trump has been at the cutting edge of these issues, which has fueled his success so far. It won't last, but you're right his consistent appeals to fear and bigotry will make him essentially untouchable in the primary. Hope you like Trump as he's probably going to win the Republican nomination. Would be a shame if 6 months from now we are hearing about how if only Republicans had nominated a "real conservative" (as if their constant refusal to nominate one isn't indicative that "conservatives" have little-no sway in the Republican party) they wouldn't be getting trounced nationally. As if the faults highlighted over a general wouldn't have been easily knowable prior, but republicans just didn't care. EDIT: Just a friendly reminder, Bernie Sanders is already beating Trump in a heads up race. What does this mean? A) conservatives don't think they control the party, it's the liberals who seem to think the "crazies" run it. B) Trounced by whom? Aside from the presidency, they control more of the national, state, and local government than any time in recent memory. There's an old rumor that if only Republicans nominated a conservative they would win a presidential race, which is imo delusional as conservatives can't even win their primary. Trounced in the presidential election. Oh, so you meant past/future. Not current. I was confused by "getting trounced." Trump or a "hard line true conservative" cannot win the presidency. They have a hard time in Senate races in some red states. There are these minorities that hard line conservatives can't win, like blacks, Hispanics and the non-minority group of women. Plus independents. I would also point out that many experts have said the electoral map looks bad for the Republicans next election. As much as I don't want Hillary to win it would be funny to hear the explanations of how Republicans could of lost to Obama 2x and Hillary if they are remotely as bad as their party thinks they are. Somehow I suspect it still wouldn't be that there is something wrong with their ideas not just their messaging.
The same people that believed Romney was going to win are in stilling charge. The Republicans are the leaders of buying their own hype.
|
On November 19 2015 13:57 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:55 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2015 10:42 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 10:27 Plansix wrote:
I would link the articles from the 1938 where we sent the Jewish refugees back to the Nazis for the same reasons and fears, but people would just claim it's totally different this time. Just like the mayor who said it was justified not accepting them by citing the Japanese internment camps as a good decision. Did the Jewish refugees at that point have a long storied history of blowing things up, remaining on welfare, and in general not integrating into society? I think it's a fairly terrible comparison to make. Jewish men at the time had a long history of sacrificing little Christian children in their blood rites. Also controlling all the money. They were about as popular as Muslims are today, and with about as much justification. Sure, every Muslim was responsible personally for 9/11 but let's not forget that WW1 was a Jewish conspiracy and every Jew unanimously voted to start WW1. I think weird conspiracies are a little different to being video taped shooting up a street and football field, as well as coming from an incredibly unstable part of the world.
The people that are applying for refugee status have not been video taped doing those things. They are different people that the terrorist. There may be terrorist posting as refugees, but we have a long vetting process to find them. If they want to commit terrorism, there are easier ways to get into this country with less exposure to the intelligence services.
|
United States42008 Posts
On November 19 2015 13:57 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:55 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2015 10:42 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 10:27 Plansix wrote:
I would link the articles from the 1938 where we sent the Jewish refugees back to the Nazis for the same reasons and fears, but people would just claim it's totally different this time. Just like the mayor who said it was justified not accepting them by citing the Japanese internment camps as a good decision. Did the Jewish refugees at that point have a long storied history of blowing things up, remaining on welfare, and in general not integrating into society? I think it's a fairly terrible comparison to make. Jewish men at the time had a long history of sacrificing little Christian children in their blood rites. Also controlling all the money. They were about as popular as Muslims are today, and with about as much justification. Sure, every Muslim was responsible personally for 9/11 but let's not forget that WW1 was a Jewish conspiracy and every Jew unanimously voted to start WW1. I think weird conspiracies are a little different to being video taped shooting up a street and football field, as well as coming from an incredibly unstable part of the world.
In 1937 the Jews were still hoarding cell phone video technology in their secret bunker. The argument that the lack of videos from back then proves there was nothing worth videoing isn't a great one. Although it is better than the argument that Muslim refugees are coming from the wartorn Middle East whereas Jews in the 30s and 40s were coming from the peaceful and stable area known as Central Europe.
|
Wait, you are telling me that pre-war Nazi Germany and Poland were not super stable or peaceful? Shocking I say.
|
On November 19 2015 14:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:57 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 13:55 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2015 10:42 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 10:27 Plansix wrote:
I would link the articles from the 1938 where we sent the Jewish refugees back to the Nazis for the same reasons and fears, but people would just claim it's totally different this time. Just like the mayor who said it was justified not accepting them by citing the Japanese internment camps as a good decision. Did the Jewish refugees at that point have a long storied history of blowing things up, remaining on welfare, and in general not integrating into society? I think it's a fairly terrible comparison to make. Jewish men at the time had a long history of sacrificing little Christian children in their blood rites. Also controlling all the money. They were about as popular as Muslims are today, and with about as much justification. Sure, every Muslim was responsible personally for 9/11 but let's not forget that WW1 was a Jewish conspiracy and every Jew unanimously voted to start WW1. I think weird conspiracies are a little different to being video taped shooting up a street and football field, as well as coming from an incredibly unstable part of the world. The people that are applying for refugee status have not been video taped doing those things. They are different people that the terrorist. There may be terrorist posting as refugees, but we have a long vetting process to find them. If they want to commit terrorism, there are easier ways to get into this country with less exposure to the intelligence services.
Btw, I can attest to the vetting process. I a completely harmless individual with a travel record that is extensive as anyones and have probably had my history of everywhere I have been and done for the 5-6 years preceding my entry about a dozn times in maybe 2-3 dozen entries to the US. So on thse get grilled for about an hour or so, wait for a few for absolutely no reason except the guy is on break, "or hes really busy" when hes literally sitting in my face sipping coffee. Driving down to NYC no fun. The hilarious thing is if I come in with a Canadian passport I could have terrorist written on my forehead and they wouldnt look twice.
They also ask me stupid shit like, "I bet you miss the US, although I guess Toronto's a great city too." maybe its supposed to induce a reaction I dont know.
When I was in college Bush had setup this program called Nseers, which was the most useless money dump regarding immigration I have ever experienced. Finger prints and registration everytime I left and entered the country. The regular i94 processing works just fine for information collection. And then having to wait 8 hours at the airport every single time because the guy with the "NSEERS portal login" didnt come in today.
I am actually surprised how cool with it we were. It was just like oh well fuck me I guess. whatever. When Obama scrapped it and they let me leave after like 5 minutes I was like.. "wait.. what? I can go?" I didnt believe the immigration office and actually still followed the same routine that I used to and at every stage they were like bro gtfo unless you want to give me a reason to keep you here. I was pretty shocked at my conditioning and fear of repurcussion if I didnt do it right. Then again I was just a kid.
The vetting process is so mindnumbling over detailed and riddled with suspicion I sincerely doubt you are going to let suspicious people in. More than likely deserving refugees or assylum seekers will probably get shafted.
People like these guys these guys..
|
On November 19 2015 14:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 13:57 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 13:55 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2015 10:42 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 10:27 Plansix wrote:
I would link the articles from the 1938 where we sent the Jewish refugees back to the Nazis for the same reasons and fears, but people would just claim it's totally different this time. Just like the mayor who said it was justified not accepting them by citing the Japanese internment camps as a good decision. Did the Jewish refugees at that point have a long storied history of blowing things up, remaining on welfare, and in general not integrating into society? I think it's a fairly terrible comparison to make. Jewish men at the time had a long history of sacrificing little Christian children in their blood rites. Also controlling all the money. They were about as popular as Muslims are today, and with about as much justification. Sure, every Muslim was responsible personally for 9/11 but let's not forget that WW1 was a Jewish conspiracy and every Jew unanimously voted to start WW1. I think weird conspiracies are a little different to being video taped shooting up a street and football field, as well as coming from an incredibly unstable part of the world. In 1937 the Jews were still hoarding cell phone video technology in their secret bunker. The argument that the lack of videos from back then proves there was nothing worth videoing isn't a great one. Although it is better than the argument that Muslim refugees are coming from the wartorn Middle East whereas Jews in the 30s and 40s were coming from the peaceful and stable area known as Central Europe.
You can't seriously compare Central Europe with its admittedly poor record during that period of time to the middle east, which has arguably more periods of war then peace throughout its modern history. Again though, the Jewish population was not liable to blow themselves up in the name of Allah (and so far I haven't found a single suicide bombing related to Jew's during the 30's and 40's, or even outbreaks of violence), they very much did contribute to the economy and work.
But it's easier to make a retarded conspiracy comparison with "Jews hiding cellphone video technology" and 159 people being executed in paris last week, and 9/11 and the London bombings, and the 200,000 people who have been killed in Syria, by other Syrian's so far, and the people who just died in Nigeria to a suicide bombing, in what can only be assumed as a way of sweeping it all under the rug.
In any event Plansix, Kwark et al. You win, the two situations are exactly the same, we would be blessed to have such marvellous people from such a marvellous place bless us with there presence in America and indeed the rest of the western world. Civil wars are in fact known for dissipating when you get on a boat after all.
|
United States42008 Posts
You were the one claiming that the peaceful and stable nature of 1930s and 1940s Europe combined with the absence of videos confirming the widespread prejudice against Jews made them uniquely good immigrants, not me. All I pointed out was a few facts from history like the existence of the First and Second World Wars and the fact that anti-Muslim prejudice in a world with cameras is likely to have more photos than anti-Jewish prejudice before the technology existed. You were the one using those factors to distinguish Jewish and Muslim refugees, all I did was point out that there was some historical context missing.
|
On November 19 2015 14:45 KwarK wrote:
You were the one claiming that the peaceful and stable nature of 1930s and 1940s Europe combined with the absence of videos confirming the widespread prejudice against Jews made them uniquely good immigrants, not me. All I pointed out was a few facts from history like the existence of the First and Second World Wars and the fact that anti-Muslim prejudice in a world with cameras is likely to have more photos than anti-Jewish prejudice before the technology existed. You were the one using those factors to distinguish Jewish and Muslim refugees, all I did was point out that there was some historical context missing.
I'd just like to point out that both photography and film existed in the 1930s and 1940s. Minor detail I know.
|
On November 19 2015 14:45 KwarK wrote:
You were the one claiming that the peaceful and stable nature of 1930s and 1940s Europe combined with the absence of videos confirming the widespread prejudice against Jews made them uniquely good immigrants, not me. All I pointed out was a few facts from history like the existence of the First and Second World Wars and the fact that anti-Muslim prejudice in a world with cameras is likely to have more photos than anti-Jewish prejudice before the technology existed. You were the one using those factors to distinguish Jewish and Muslim refugees, all I did was point out that there was some historical context missing.
No, I was claiming that plansix using rhetoric from 1938 regarding Jewish refugees in comparison to refugees from the middle east was retarded at best and dishonest at worst.
|
On November 19 2015 14:50 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 14:45 KwarK wrote:
You were the one claiming that the peaceful and stable nature of 1930s and 1940s Europe combined with the absence of videos confirming the widespread prejudice against Jews made them uniquely good immigrants, not me. All I pointed out was a few facts from history like the existence of the First and Second World Wars and the fact that anti-Muslim prejudice in a world with cameras is likely to have more photos than anti-Jewish prejudice before the technology existed. You were the one using those factors to distinguish Jewish and Muslim refugees, all I did was point out that there was some historical context missing. No, I was claiming that plansix using rhetoric from 1938 regarding Jewish refugees in comparison to refugees from the middle east was retarded at best and dishonest at worst.
The little problem is that people will always say that and 20 years later everybody is ashamed because they noticed they were inhumane jerks, for once we could actually skip the ignorance phase. It's always the same rationalization. "nonono then it was different those guys right now don't deserve our empathy, like a dozen of those million guys could probably be terrorists!"
|
On November 19 2015 16:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 14:50 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 14:45 KwarK wrote:
You were the one claiming that the peaceful and stable nature of 1930s and 1940s Europe combined with the absence of videos confirming the widespread prejudice against Jews made them uniquely good immigrants, not me. All I pointed out was a few facts from history like the existence of the First and Second World Wars and the fact that anti-Muslim prejudice in a world with cameras is likely to have more photos than anti-Jewish prejudice before the technology existed. You were the one using those factors to distinguish Jewish and Muslim refugees, all I did was point out that there was some historical context missing. No, I was claiming that plansix using rhetoric from 1938 regarding Jewish refugees in comparison to refugees from the middle east was retarded at best and dishonest at worst. The little problem is that people will always say that and 20 years later everybody is ashamed because they noticed they were inhumane jerks, for once we could actually skip the ignorance phase. It's always the same rationalization. "nonono then it was different those guys right now don't deserve our empathy, like a dozen of those million guys could probably be terrorists!"
The solution to Syria is to import every single person from Syria in it, that way there will be a 100% decline in casualties in Syria. Only 20million or so to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
