PDA

View Full Version : States' Stance on Taking in Refugees



Rusty Jones
11-17-2015, 03:00 PM
I don't think it's necessary for me to post an article here; we all know what's going on: some states are refusing to take them, other states are welcoming them in.

But I gotta tell you: I love the hypocrisy I see. If someone is poor and needs help, they're slammed as "lazy" and looking for "entitlements," "handouts," and "free stuff." Or they're told that minimum wage jobs weren't designed to live off of.

But as soon as the talk of taking in refugees comes up, it's "We've got too many of our own going without! We need to take care of our own first!"

I'm seeing this on facebook on the local news fb pages, and it's the exact same people!

Clearly, people who do this shit aren't being completely honest about their motives behind the stance that they're taking.

giggawatt
11-17-2015, 03:49 PM
I've seen it a lot as well but mostly about homeless vets. But I think the bigger message I've seen lately is the terror threat.

Rainmaker
11-17-2015, 04:27 PM
Clearly, people who do this shit aren't being completely honest about their motives behind the stance that they're taking.

Back in September Rainmaker was in Europe and watching the local Television Programming device.

The European media kept on showing pictures of these photogenic white women and Children making their journey to progressive Utopias like Sweden. The realty though is much different.

70% of the refugees are young men in their 20s and 30s. Why are they not in their own country fighting for their women and Children?

80% of the American public wanted us to stay the fuck out of Syria.

So, should they now be forced to pay for housing and feeding a 100,000+ Migrants with a potentially hostile background?

If we have to take them, they should all be housed inside the Beltway.

Mjölnir
11-17-2015, 04:38 PM
Rusty Jones does bring up a good point. There is hypocrisy in many of the arguments, both for and against relocating refugees into the U.S.

Yes, some paint anyone who receives public benefits / assistance as lazy or only looking for a handout. In some cases it is true, in some it is not.

Yes, there are too many in the U.S. who need help and don't or cannot get it. In some cases it is the bureaucracy, in some cases it is being caught between feuding politicians. But, in our country there is plenty of opportunity, the vast majority of that opportunity is open to anyone willing to work for it' there is also ample opportunity for people to do the bare minimum (even less in some cases) and still get by. They may never be as comfortable as some, but they won't be out on the street.

I agree, there are too many in our country that go without, too many children who are captured in a poor situation of their parent's making and too many people staring at incredibly difficult situations. There are also too many sitting back waiting for someone to make it happen for them, waiting for the next free thing and expecting that the role of the government is to provide the 'thing' rather than the opportunity to provide for yourself.

As far as the refugees, I would be careful about wide admission of refugees from both a cost and security concern. First and foremost we should figure out how to properly screen and evaluate those refugees who we will take in, how we will keep track of them and what we are going to do with them once they come here. If we are talking someone who is going to be another enrollee onto public assistance, it may not be in our best interest ... but I don't think turning all of them away is the right thing to do either. No doubt, no matter how many we take there will be bad apples, maybe a good apple that later goes bad ... who knows.

Rusty Jones
11-17-2015, 04:51 PM
You know... I have no problem expressing SOME reservation about taking in the refugees, mostly because I'm not the one to wait until situations like this before saying "we need to take care of our own!" Nope, I've said this long before.

To piggyback on what Rainmaker said... I'm not feminist, in either direction. You'll never hear me complain about women not having to register with the Selective Service or having to be able to run as fast on the PT test.

With that being said, I'd find it very disturbing if his stats are true. I'd be all for limiting refugees to women and children, or allowing only allowing men who are accompanied by wives and/or children. I agree that the men should be fighting.

Rainmaker
11-17-2015, 04:52 PM
First and foremost we should figure out how to properly screen and evaluate those refugees who we will take in, how we will keep track of them and what we are going to do with them once they come here.

Who's going to get that contract? How many Green on Blue attacks have we seen in the AOR in the last decade of this shit-show already?

Not to mention, We can't even properly vet our own TCNs coming in to the secured areas in theater and we're going to give access to thousands of Military aged Males and let them have unlimited access to our civilian communities?

Boy, what a Great fucking idea! What could go wrong?

sandsjames
11-17-2015, 05:13 PM
It doesn't matter if some states don't take them. Once they are in the U.S, they can travel to whichever states they want.

As far as Rusty's point, he's absolutely right. People should just be honest and say that they don't want them here because of the real reasons: Security, xenophobia, and a smell worse than kimchee. The financial reason is pretty lame.

Rainmaker
11-17-2015, 05:17 PM
With that being said, I'd find it very disturbing if his stats are true. I'd be all for limiting refugees to women and children, or allowing only allowing men who are accompanied by wives and/or children. I agree that the men should be fighting.

It no longer matters what any of us thinks. Much like Obamacare and Granting de facto Amnesty (which the majority of the public was against), This is going to happen. It's been planned for years. It must be clear that the elected Representatives of the country no longer respects the will of the Citizenry. Enter Donald Trump.

Mjölnir
11-17-2015, 05:20 PM
Who's going to get that contract?

Probably some benevolent contracting agency with no profit motive whatsoever. ;)


How many Green on Blue attacks have we seen in the AOR in the last decade of this shit-show already?

Too many; one is too many. But realistically we can't think that there won't be any either. We can't think that every refugee from anywhere (Syria, South America, Africa, the Balkans etc.) is going to be spotless or will not run afoul of the law (large or small) somewhere down the road.

I think it would be much easier to close the border and say that we will take none; I don't think that is the right thing for us to do.

MERC8401
11-17-2015, 05:44 PM
Can someone point me to the reference that 70% of the Syrian refugees are middle aged men? I keep seeing that spouted in various social media, but I haven't seen where that number has come from. Not trying to be snarky...just want to see a reliable source.

Rainmaker
11-17-2015, 06:12 PM
It doesn't matter if some states don't take them. Once they are in the U.S, they can travel to whichever states they want.

As far as Rusty's point, he's absolutely right. People should just be honest and say that they don't want them here because of the real reasons: Security, xenophobia, and a smell worse than kimchee. The financial reason is pretty lame.

brining in 100K people that you can't vet and letting them roam around the country is a bad idea.

Syrians are generally fine people. I actually think they are much more capable of Assimilating into western Societies than some of the others we take. Because, Pre civil war Syria was fairly westernized

The only reason we've been dicking around in Syria, Arming these so called "moderates" was to destabilize the Assad Regime. If we'd have stayed out of it, the shit would've been over with already.

Instead you've got 250,000+ killed and a Modern day Golden Horde of 4 Million homeless flooding into Western Europe.

Syria was a long ally of the Commies. But, they joined the Coalition in the Gulf war.

the cold war's been over for 25 years. The Russians could've been a great ally in the fight against terrorism. 15% of Russia is Moslem. and Russia has a huge problem with Radical Moslems. Mostly Chechyns who are closely associated with Saudi Arabia.

We had a really good opportunity after the cold war and instead pissed it away on the Israeli Project.

And the money matters. We're broke and As long as it costs a Million $ per an extremist. we lose.

sandsjames
11-17-2015, 06:23 PM
brining in 100K people that you can't vet and letting them roam around the country is a bad idea.

Syrians are generally fine people. I actually think they are much more capable of Assimilating into western Societies than some of the others we take. Because, Pre civil war Syria was fairly westernized

The only reason we've been dicking around in Syria, Arming these so called "moderates" was to destabilize the Assad Regime. If we'd have stayed out of it, the shit would've been over with already.

Instead you've got 250,000+ killed and a Modern day Golden Horde of 4 Million homeless flooding into Western Europe.

Syria was a long ally of the Commies. But, they joined the Coalition in the Gulf war.

the cold war's been over for 25 years. The Russians could've been a great ally in the fight against terrorism. 15% of Russia is Moslem. and Russia has a huge problem with Radical Moslems. Mostly Chechyns who are closely associated with Saudi Arabia.

We had a really good opportunity after the cold war and instead pissed it away on the Israeli Project.

And the money matters. We're broke and As long as it costs a Million $ per an extremist. we lose.

Is there a reason you quoted my post for this? Doesn't seem relevant to what I said. Rusty is right, though. The average person doesn't give a shit about the money side of things because Joe Public has no idea how the money works.

Ultimately, I don't care about the money/tax side anyway. I've been working age through 6 presidencies and my taxes still remain close to the same.

TJMAC77SP
11-17-2015, 06:45 PM
As with most things there is a political side to the issue and both sides are using it to their attempted benefit.

The one issue that can't be escaped is the almost total lack of ability to vet these people. The White House spokesman really stuck his foot in his mouth when speaking from Turkey the other day and citing what I believe he called a 'vigorous vetting process'. A stretch of the truth at very best. Just as it is a tragedy that civilians are used to shield these terrorists in almost every location they operate it is an equal tragedy that real and needy refugees will be the ones who suffer in this situation. Nonetheless and however it looks the security of the homeland cannot be compromised.

Rainmaker
11-17-2015, 07:31 PM
Is there a reason you quoted my post for this?

Because, When the teacher is ready the student appears.


Ultimately, I don't care about the money/tax side anyway. I've been working age through 6 presidencies and my taxes still remain close to the same.



That's because you are subsidized by net tax payer who make more than you and That pool of net payers is shrinking every day. Eventually it becomes unsustainable

You takers may think you're immune to tax increases. but, you're not. Because, Whether you realize it or not, Your taxes have gone up through an inflationary tax.

For the last several years, Your GS salary and Mil Retirement are not keeping up with "Real" inflation. The Government calculation method has changed drastically over the last several decades.

So, When you need it most your Social security will be worth less in spending power than it is today. If you have money in a 401K,that will be worth less as well. You can't make money in savings accounts/ CDs etc.

Most of the inflation from the money printing is in Luxury Real estate and goods and in the Stock Market. That's why they've all gone up so much in value since, the collapse.

Inflation wouldn't be so harmful if salaries were inflating as well as goods. But, they're not because we don't make anything anymore.

It effects all of us because 90% of Americans have no stake in the stock market and companies are no longer investing in production because, they are getting risk free money from the Fed on Wall Street, so why would they invest in you? When you probably suck and don't make any money for them?

So, SJ, at the end of the day this bill will be paid by you, one way or another.

So, when I'm drinking martinis on the beach and you're fighting with Syrian Refugees for the remaining can of Cat Food at the 7-11, I'll be saying Thanks Dumbass! Nomsayin?

Rollyn01
11-17-2015, 07:53 PM
I don't think it's necessary for me to post an article here; we all know what's going on: some states are refusing to take them, other states are welcoming them in.

But I gotta tell you: I love the hypocrisy I see. If someone is poor and needs help, they're slammed as "lazy" and looking for "entitlements," "handouts," and "free stuff." Or they're told that minimum wage jobs weren't designed to live off of.

But as soon as the talk of taking in refugees comes up, it's "We've got too many of our own going without! We need to take care of our own first!"

I'm seeing this on facebook on the local news fb pages, and it's the exact same people!

Clearly, people who do this shit aren't being completely honest about their motives behind the stance that they're taking.

This is clearly a case of hopping on the bandwagon coupled with cognitive dissonance plus the "any excuse to hate them" bullshit that many use to validate their ignorant thinking. Their inability to to see that they are just a cog in a machine limits their point of view to just looking out for themselves. Only when they believe that something will affect them, that's when they rise to action to point out the problem that we have been having for the longest time. In short, if it doesn't affect them, they don't care and will even work against an issue so that they don't have to do anything about it. A bit ironic, isn't it?

sandsjames
11-17-2015, 09:30 PM
Because, When the teacher is ready the student appears.





That's because you are subsidized by net tax payer who make more than you and That pool of net payers is shrinking every day. Eventually it becomes unsustainable

You takers may think you're immune to tax increases. but, you're not. Because, Whether you realize it or not, Your taxes have gone up through an inflationary tax.

For the last several years, Your GS salary and Mil Retirement are not keeping up with "Real" inflation. The Government calculation method has changed drastically over the last several decades.

So, When you need it most your Social security will be worth less in spending power than it is today. If you have money in a 401K,that will be worth less as well. You can't make money in savings accounts/ CDs etc.

Most of the inflation from the money printing is in Luxury Real estate and goods and in the Stock Market. That's why they've all gone up so much in value since, the collapse.

Inflation wouldn't be so harmful if salaries were inflating as well as goods. But, they're not because we don't make anything anymore.

It effects all of us because 90% of Americans have no stake in the stock market and companies are no longer investing in production because, they are getting risk free money from the Fed on Wall Street, so why would they invest in you? When you probably suck and don't make any money for them?

So, SJ, at the end of the day this bill will be paid by you, one way or another.

So, when I'm drinking martinis on the beach and you're fighting with Syrian Refugees for the remaining can of Cat Food at the 7-11, I'll be saying Thanks Dumbass! Nomsayin?

I'll be just fine, though I'm not a fan of Martinis. Gin is horrible. We should have had the Boston Gin Party, instead of tea, and got rid of all that crap.

sandsjames
11-17-2015, 09:32 PM
This is clearly a case of hopping on the bandwagon coupled with cognitive dissonance plus the "any excuse to hate them" bullshit that many use to validate their ignorant thinking. Their inability to to see that they are just a cog in a machine limits their point of view to just looking out for themselves. Only when they believe that something will affect them, that's when they rise to action to point out the problem that we have been having for the longest time. In short, if it doesn't affect them, they don't care and will even work against an issue so that they don't have to do anything about it. A bit ironic, isn't it?

This is the way of the world. We work hard to make it more convenient to be lazy. If we weren't like this, we'd still be dialing rotary phones and hooking the wagon up to the horses.

Rainmaker
11-17-2015, 09:42 PM
I'll be just fine, though I'm not a fan of Martinis. Gin is horrible. We should have had the Boston Gin Party, instead of tea, and got rid of all that crap.

Scratch that. Gin is very British sounding. Let's make it Bourbon.

Rainmaker
11-17-2015, 10:14 PM
This is clearly a case of hopping on the bandwagon coupled with cognitive dissonance plus the "any excuse to hate them" bullshit that many use to validate their ignorant thinking. Their inability to to see that they are just a cog in a machine limits their point of view to just looking out for themselves. Only when they believe that something will affect them, that's when they rise to action to point out the problem that we have been having for the longest time. In short, if it doesn't affect them, they don't care and will even work against an issue so that they don't have to do anything about it. A bit ironic, isn't it?

so, Rollyn. It's like feeding cats. Now, I live in an old farm house on a couple of acres. Shortly after I moved in, I inherited this stray cat that now lives on my front porch. I started feeding him because, It's a nice cat, and it kills the pests (it's contributing). But, If I started feeding every stray cat that came around. Pretty soon, I'd turn into the fucking crazy cat lady. My furniture'd be scratched all to hell and my house would smell like cat piss.

so, If I don't feed them it doesn't mean I'm a pussy phobe. It's just common sense. Nomsayin?

garhkal
11-17-2015, 11:48 PM
I don't think it's necessary for me to post an article here; we all know what's going on: some states are refusing to take them, other states are welcoming them in.

But I gotta tell you: I love the hypocrisy I see. If someone is poor and needs help, they're slammed as "lazy" and looking for "entitlements," "handouts," and "free stuff." Or they're told that minimum wage jobs weren't designed to live off of.

But as soon as the talk of taking in refugees comes up, it's "We've got too many of our own going without! We need to take care of our own first!"

I'm seeing this on facebook on the local news fb pages, and it's the exact same people!

Clearly, people who do this shit aren't being completely honest about their motives behind the stance that they're taking.

Rusty, i am one of those who DO feel we shouldn't accept refugees (when it has been proven by statistics that most just go on welfare), while we have our own needy.
The difference is (well to me), that is not making me a hypocrite just cause i want them helped. NOTICE i didn't say taken care of for life like most on welfare seem to be. THERE is imo a difference between a helping hand up, and a HAND OUT.
Give a man a fish, he can eat for a day
Teach a man to fish, he can eat for a long time.

THAT imo is the difference.


I'm not feminist, in either direction. You'll never hear me complain about women not having to register with the Selective Service or having to be able to run as fast on the PT test.

With that being said, I'd find it very disturbing if his stats are true. I'd be all for limiting refugees to women and children, or allowing only allowing men who are accompanied by wives and/or children. I agree that the men should be fighting.

Rusty.. How is that NOT being feminist? Only wanting equality for women when it benefits them but not wanting them to have the same responsibilities as men (in regards to selective service/having lesser PT standards), or only wanting to accept men if they also have women with them, otherwise they are SOL?


Who's going to get that contract? How many Green on Blue attacks have we seen in the AOR in the last decade of this shit-show already?

Not to mention, We can't even properly vet our own TCNs coming in to the secured areas in theater and we're going to give access to thousands of Military aged Males and let them have unlimited access to our civilian communities?

Boy, what a Great fucking idea! What could go wrong?

Plus i have lost track of the # of times one of these attacks happen, and it is mentioned later that 'This or that subject' was on one of the terror watch lists..
Well if he was supposedly being watched, HOW did they get all the stuff to make the attack without it being noticed?

Rusty Jones
11-18-2015, 03:26 AM
Rusty, i am one of those who DO feel we shouldn't accept refugees (when it has been proven by statistics that most just go on welfare), while we have our own needy.
The difference is (well to me), that is not making me a hypocrite just cause i want them helped. NOTICE i didn't say taken care of for life like most on welfare seem to be. THERE is imo a difference between a helping hand up, and a HAND OUT.
Give a man a fish, he can eat for a day
Teach a man to fish, he can eat for a long time.

THAT imo is the difference.


You didn't explain a difference. You simply threw in "hand up over hand out" on top of reaffirming your belief in the very hypocrisy I spoke of.

Speaking of which, "hand up over hand out" is another form of hypocrisy. Notice how the particular side of the political spectrum that preaches this isn't the same side that's pushing to make college education more affordable and available to everyone. What bigger "hand up" is there than education that leads to a credential that qualifies the holder for a decent job?


Rusty.. How is that NOT being feminist? Only wanting equality for women when it benefits them but not wanting them to have the same responsibilities as men (in regards to selective service/having lesser PT standards), or only wanting to accept men if they also have women with them, otherwise they are SOL?

Okay, so women get equal rights... something that's not happening at your expense. Is that your cue to stop being a man, and hand your balls over to women? I'm already hearing of this happening in Mexico, where women are arming themselves to fight the drug cartels, with no men in sight... that really speaks volumes of the men who should be protecting these women, don't you think?

garhkal
11-18-2015, 04:31 AM
You didn't explain a difference. You simply threw in "hand up over hand out" on top of reaffirming your belief in the very hypocrisy I spoke of.

The difference i was trying to show, is our current system of 'help' only seems to breed DEPENDENCY on it, unlike how it used to be..


Speaking of which, "hand up over hand out" is another form of hypocrisy. Notice how the particular side of the political spectrum that preaches this isn't the same side that's pushing to make college education more affordable and available to everyone. What bigger "hand up" is there than education that leads to a credential that qualifies the holder for a decent job?

Then maybe the colleges themselves who charge so much need to look into WHY they are pricy. Rather than asking tax payers to give more..


Okay, so women get equal rights... something that's not happening at your expense. Is that your cue to stop being a man, and hand your balls over to women? I'm already hearing of this happening in Mexico, where women are arming themselves to fight the drug cartels, with no men in sight... that really speaks volumes of the men who should be protecting these women, don't you think?

Good on those gals then.

Rainmaker
11-18-2015, 07:21 PM
Can someone point me to the reference that 70% of the Syrian refugees are middle aged men? I keep seeing that spouted in various social media, but I haven't seen where that number has come from. Not trying to be snarky...just want to see a reliable source.

Merc,

70% is the number that I've seen being kicked around all over as well, which is why I cited it.

It's kind of hard to find the actual data. But, The UN numbers for current registered Syrian refugees in Camps OUTSIDE of Europe are 50-50.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

However, the EU puts the number of asylum seekers at 3/4's male.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum statistics

Rainmaker
11-18-2015, 07:26 PM
so, my post was cut off. but, from the EU link....



"The distribution of asylum applicants by sex shows that men were more likely than women to seek asylum. Across the EU-28, the gender distribution was most balanced for asylum applicants aged less than 14, where boys accounted for 53 % of the total number of applications in 2014. There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants aged 14

The gender difference was even more apparent when considering unaccompanied minors, as 86 % of asylum applicants in the EU-28 in 2014 that were unaccompanied minors were male, compared with 54 % for accompanied minors.


It makes sense to me that although the total number of refugees in 50-50 in the camps 70% going to Europe would be males. Because the journey from the Middle East or North Africa into Europe is extremely difficult and dangerous.

If I was in those shoes (God forbid), My plan would likely be to send My 2 sons that are in their 20s and then send for my wife and daughters later.

Whatever the true numbers are. It's a complete disaster.

Rainmaker
11-18-2015, 09:41 PM
Then maybe the colleges themselves who charge so much need to look into WHY they are pricy. Rather than asking tax payers to give more..



The reason college costs are skyrocketing is because of government involving themselves in backing student loans.

Same as with housing bubble, most of these loans will never be paid back and the banks will demand a bailout or threaten to collapse the economy.

Assuming they even graduate, Half these kids are getting bullshit degrees in made up subjects like "cultural studies" where the only job you can get is some make work government position that adds nothing of value to the rest of society.

UncaRastus
11-18-2015, 10:15 PM
Rainmaker, what I suppose you are trying to say is that my degree in Yogurt Knitting is superfluous?

I am glad that my other degree is in Flibbertigibbeting. There is much usage of that in government positions, nowadays.

garhkal
11-18-2015, 11:29 PM
Assuming they even graduate, Half these kids are getting bullshit degrees in made up subjects like "cultural studies" where the only job you can get is some make work government position that adds nothing of value to the rest of society.

Good point. What exactly is 'cultural studies' going to do for the country anyway?
Personally i feel we need to push more tech schools..

MikeKerriii
11-18-2015, 11:44 PM
Good point. What exactly is 'cultural studies' going to do for the country anyway?
Personally i feel we need to push more tech schools..

Unlike the dimwitted babble from Rubio, Philosophy graduates make far better money that welders, both to start and over the long term.

waveshaper2
11-19-2015, 01:45 AM
I have no problem with the U.S. taking in 10,000 Syrian refugees but there's a catch. They must all be single, breeding age females, 18 to 30 years old, and if their hot then they move to the front of the line.
Note; This would probably pizz off the Muslim world because they would consider it discriminatory since the Islamic Standard for breeding age females is 8 to "unknown for upper age limit".

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 01:53 AM
Unlike the dimwitted babble from Rubio, Philosophy graduates make far better money that welders, both to start and over the long term.

Undergraduate degree in Philosophy
Starting Median Salary: $39,900
Mid CareerMedian Salary: 81,200
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Degrees_that_Pay_you_Back-sort.html)

Union Welder RochesterNY.
Starting salary: $55,398
Mid Career Median Salary: $79,141
http://salarygenius.com/ny/rochester/salary/union-welder-salary?p=1 (http://salarygenius.com/ny/rochester/salary/union-welder-salary?p=1)

Rollyn01
11-19-2015, 03:18 AM
This is the way of the world. We work hard to make it more convenient to be lazy. If we weren't like this, we'd still be dialing rotary phones and hooking the wagon up to the horses.

Not that I'm against technological advancement that allow us to do more with less, I am against that notion that everything should be made easier just for the sake of making it easier. In other words, I think the goal should be to teach others how to better deal with difficult situations instead of making the situations easier. Doing so would allow them to be better off without being dependent on everything being easy for them.

Rollyn01
11-19-2015, 03:22 AM
so, Rollyn. It's like feeding cats. Now, I live in an old farm house on a couple of acres. Shortly after I moved in, I inherited this stray cat that now lives on my front porch. I started feeding him because, It's a nice cat, and it kills the pests (it's contributing). But, If I started feeding every stray cat that came around. Pretty soon, I'd turn into the fucking crazy cat lady. My furniture'd be scratched all to hell and my house would smell like cat piss.

so, If I don't feed them it doesn't mean I'm a pussy phobe. It's just common sense. Nomsayin?

Understood (been wondering why we had a cat in the bunker). So long as they are willing to contribute in a positive manner, both in terms of economic and social improvement, I have no issues letting them in. If they are all about coming to slowly kill us in either way, those fuckers got to go and die in a ditch somewhere.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 03:33 AM
They must all be single, breeding age females, 18 to 30 years old, and if their hot then they move to the front of the line..

Only if They Are "Syria-sly" hot....

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/13-syrian-refugees-wed-take-immediately-photos/

waveshaper2
11-19-2015, 10:38 AM
Only if They Are "Syria-sly" hot....

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/13-syrian-refugees-wed-take-immediately-photos/

Now that's a vetting process I could live with. Note; I forgot to add this to the criteria for passing the vetting process; No refugees with FGM modifications" are acceptable.

Rusty Jones
11-19-2015, 10:40 AM
Only if They Are "Syria-sly" hot....

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/13-syrian-refugees-wed-take-immediately-photos/

...most of them aren't hot, though. Didn't I see a unibrow or two in there somewhere?

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 11:19 AM
Not that I'm against technological advancement that allow us to do more with less, I am against that notion that everything should be made easier just for the sake of making it easier. In other words, I think the goal should be to teach others how to better deal with difficult situations instead of making the situations easier. Doing so would allow them to be better off without being dependent on everything being easy for them.

I agree, but if I can drive somewhere, I'm not going to walk, even though I know it's better for me.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 11:31 AM
What makes this difficult is we know that the large majority of the refugees do need our help, or someone's help, as they are living in a situation nobody should live in. We also know that there's a huge chance that at least a few of the large number will be extremists and will attempt to kill innocent civilians. On those two points, I think we should all agree, though I've been on this site long enough to know we won't.

So it comes down to what we find more important. Aiding in getting many people out of harms way while bring a threat to our own shores (a threat that is already here) or stopping them from coming here and forcing thousands to continue living in hell in order in order to protect against what we know for sure is a threat.

Years ago, in a similar but different situation, I was involved with the process of housing many Kurdish refugees (about 1000) in an old housing area on Guam. The one thing we all noticed, very quickly, was that it only took a few weeks for the people we housed and were around on a daily basis to become much more "moderate".

I know that the Kurds are different than the Syrians, but I think we also need to ask if we will actually create more moderate Muslims, ones who may have become extremists. If so, would it actually, ultimately, lower the threat?

It will all be hindsight one day and we'll have an "I told you so" from one side or the other. I think both sides think they have our best interest at heart. It's just a choice to make that is impossible for everyone to agree on. Glad it's not my decision to make.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 12:17 PM
Let's call out the hypocrisy when it's so obvious.

People want the government to "pause" bringing in the refugees in order to give enough time to do thorough background checks to ensure the safety of American citizens because, as has been said, even though most are good people, some of them are sure to be extremists and will harm us.

These same people do not want to institute stricter background checks for guns, which would give enough time to do thorough background checks to ensure the safety of the American citizens because, let's be honest, even though most gun owners are good people, some of them are sure to be extremists and will harm us.

Rusty Jones
11-19-2015, 12:18 PM
I agree, but if I can drive somewhere, I'm not going to walk, even though I know it's better for me.

It's that military mindset of going out of their way to make our lives more difficult, just for the sake of being "hard core."

Rusty Jones
11-19-2015, 12:56 PM
Let's call out the hypocrisy when it's so obvious.

People want the government to "pause" bringing in the refugees in order to give enough time to do thorough background checks to ensure the safety of American citizens because, as has been said, even though most are good people, some of them are sure to be extremists and will harm us.

That desire for a "pause," however, is something I'm questioning the motives of. Some people, just flat out, don't want the refugees here. I'm mostly seeing the desire for the "pause" from conservative politicians. But not from conservative "people."

There's racism, there's Islamophobia, there's xenophobia, and there's... well, I can't put my finger on it... but some people, maybe most, are disgusted by the sight of seeing people who look like they live in abject poverty roaming the streets. I can admit to having some of these feelings myself, but I'm conscious of it and know that it's wrong. I'll give you an example: when I lived in San Antonio from 2006 to 2009, there was an FLDS complex - I can't remember where it was, if it was in Utah or the western part of Texas. In any case, that complex got raided by the police and hundreds of women and children were rescued. Many of them were brought to San Antonio. I remember seeing a group of them for the first time when we took our daughter out to Olive Garden... and just seeing them and the way they were dressed, my wife started expressing disgust. I caught myself agreeing with her, but... I also knew that it was wrong, and I corrected my wife on that.

It's my understanding that that's how antiziganism got started in Europe.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2015, 12:58 PM
Let's call out the hypocrisy when it's so obvious.

People want the government to "pause" bringing in the refugees in order to give enough time to do thorough background checks to ensure the safety of American citizens because, as has been said, even though most are good people, some of them are sure to be extremists and will harm us.

These same people do not want to institute stricter background checks for guns, which would give enough time to do thorough background checks to ensure the safety of the American citizens because, let's be honest, even though most gun owners are good people, some of them are sure to be extremists and will harm us.

That is an excellent call out.

Heck, a good portion of those same people scream about NSA surveillance being too intrusive.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 01:30 PM
That is an excellent call out.

Heck, a good portion of those same people scream about NSA surveillance being too intrusive.

No it's a retarded callout.

The 2nd and 4th Amendment protections apply to US citizens, not foreign nationals fleeing from displaced persons camps in Turkey and Jordan.

Apples and oranges.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 01:43 PM
That is an excellent call out.

Heck, a good portion of those same people scream about NSA surveillance being too intrusive.

It's a call out to both sides. The one's who want to take more time to ensure guns don't end up in the hands of criminals aren't really supporting the "pause".

Like I said, we won't know until much later. Maybe I'm just getting old and sentimental, but I'd like to error on the side of compassion.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 01:49 PM
No it's a retarded callout.

The 2nd and 4th Amendment protections apply to US citizens, not foreign nationals fleeing from displaced persons camps in Turkey and Jordan.

Apples and oranges.

Retarded or not, the majority of right wingers are just falling in line with their politicians and taking advantage of the terrorism in France, just as the left jumps on the anti-gun bandwagon after every mass shooting.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2015, 01:56 PM
No it's a retarded callout.

The 2nd and 4th Amendment protections apply to US citizens, not foreign nationals fleeing from displaced persons camps in Turkey and Jordan.

Apples and oranges.

Are you trying to claim that there is a special sort of magic about being an American? That they don't need a background check when purchasing a gun?

Because an American would never go bonkers and shoot up a school or a theater.

As for the Fourth Ammendment, the NSA surveillce program isn't aimed at Americans until they communicate with a foreign national suspected of terrorism.

Your phone records and Internet activities are used to send you advertising for consumer products on a daily basis.

But you don't want those same records and browsing habits to be used to catch terrorists.

It was a good call out.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 02:00 PM
Retarded or not, the majority of right wingers are just falling in line with their politicians and taking advantage of the terrorism in France, just as the left jumps on the anti-gun bandwagon after every mass shooting.

Vast majority of America doesn't want the government to flood the country with refugees.

This has all been planned for years, these people have been sitting in camps in the middle east and were intentionally encouraged to flood Europe to create a Humanitarian disaster in order to steer public support toward intervention in Syria.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 02:13 PM
Are you trying to claim that there is a special sort of magic about being an American? That they don't need a background check when purchasing a gun?

Because an American would never go bonkers and shoot up a school or a theater.

As for the Fourth Ammendment, the NSA surveillce program isn't aimed at Americans until they communicate with a foreign national suspected of terrorism.

Your phone records and Internet activities are used to send you advertising for consumer products on a daily basis.

But you don't want those same records and browsing habits to be used to catch terrorists.

It was a good call out.

We already have background checks, but most gun violence is committed by hood rats using stolen handguns. They don't submit to background checks

As far as the NSA bulk spying on US citizens at a cost of $100s of billions a year being constitutional, why did clapper need to lie to Congress about it?

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 02:29 PM
We already have background checks, but most gun violence is committed by hood rats using stolen handguns. They don't submit to background checks



Along those same lines, terrorism is going to continue whether we allow refugees in or not. They are going to get here, one way or another. If I thought for a second that stopping refugees would stop the chance of terrorism, then I'd be all for it. Bad people find a way. That doesn't mean we should punish the good people. We shouldn't take guns away from law abiders just because there are bad apples. We should take the opportunity for a better life away from refugees just because there are bad apples.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 02:31 PM
We can argue about the political vs. practical motivations forever. It ignores the real on-the-ground issue.

I will repeat myself.


As with most things there is a political side to the issue and both sides are using it to their attempted benefit.

The one issue that can't be escaped is the almost total lack of ability to vet these people. The White House spokesman really stuck his foot in his mouth when speaking from Turkey the other day and citing what I believe he called a 'vigorous vetting process'. A stretch of the truth at very best. Just as it is a tragedy that civilians are used to shield these terrorists in almost every location they operate it is an equal tragedy that real and needy refugees will be the ones who suffer in this situation. Nonetheless and however it looks the security of the homeland cannot be compromised.

Of course we should take in refugees but the plain and ugly fact is we can't take everyone and shouldn't take anyone if the threat is unmanageable.

I would rather us continue these philosophical discussions than the ones full of incriminations which I am sure is going on in France and Belgium today.

SJ, I simply cannot fathom your argument. Your comparison is now a little faulty.

We do background checks to attempt to weed out bad apples from having guns. There is a published and known vetting process.

No one has described such a vetting process (other than to attach adjectives to it) for a group which would now appear to have a documented threat attached to it.

I want to see those people come in. I just want to feel better about how it is determined who to let in.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 03:02 PM
We can argue about the political vs. practical motivations forever. It ignores the real on-the-ground issue.

I will repeat myself.



Of course we should take in refugees but the plain and ugly fact is we can't take everyone and shouldn't take anyone if the threat is unmanageable.

I would rather us continue these philosophical discussions than the ones full of incriminations which I am sure is going on in France and Belgium today.

SJ, I simply cannot fathom your argument. Your comparison is now a little faulty.

We do background checks to attempt to weed out bad apples from having guns. There is a published and known vetting process.

No one has described such a vetting process (other than to attach adjectives to it) for a group which would now appear to have a documented threat attached to it.

I want to see those people come in. I just want to feel better about how it is determined who to let in.There is not a published and known vetting process nationwide. I can walk into a store today and leave with a gun and ammo. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that I shouldn't be able to. I absolutely should be able to. Why? Because, as mentioned, the bad guys are going to get the guns whether they are vetted or not.

In the past 6 months that I've been away, I've learned that I need to start looking at things from a human set of eyes, not from a political one. It's difficult to do, but I'm learning as I go. I think my biggest frustration comes from watching TV during/shortly after the Paris attacks. Almost all stations were discussing the politics of the situation. Even those who tried to make it sound like they were talking about the human side were only doing so for political gain, pandering to their audience. So I'll let the politicians do their thing and I'll keep trying to become a better human being. At the end of this life, the things I will have to answer for won't be about my thoughts on threat assessments, they will be about my feelings/actions about humanity.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 03:06 PM
"Of course we should take in refugees"

We already do. In fact we've taken in 30 Million+ in the last 3 decades already. Why should we take more from the Middle East? How many is going to be enough?

Rusty Jones
11-19-2015, 03:11 PM
Along those same lines, terrorism is going to continue whether we allow refugees in or not. They are going to get here, one way or another. If I thought for a second that stopping refugees would stop the chance of terrorism, then I'd be all for it. Bad people find a way. That doesn't mean we should punish the good people. We shouldn't take guns away from law abiders just because there are bad apples. We should take the opportunity for a better life away from refugees just because there are bad apples.

This is what I was thinking. We didn't need to take in refugees for 9/11 to happen.

But, at the same time... you know the old saying about failing to learn from history and, in this case, all the refugees that the US took from Cuba back in the 70's and 80's and what happened to Miami as a result.

The "vetting process" that's being discussed... well, it's my understanding that many of the Cuban refugees that we took we hardened criminals that even Cuba couldn't handle, so they sent them off. If I'm not mistaken, the US government actually knew this.

So... there has to be a "right way" to handle this.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 03:12 PM
There is not a published and known vetting process nationwide. I can walk into a store today and leave with a gun and ammo. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that I shouldn't be able to. I absolutely should be able to. Why? Because, as mentioned, the bad guys are going to get the guns whether they are vetted or not.

In the past 6 months that I've been away, I've learned that I need to start looking at things from a human set of eyes, not from a political one. It's difficult to do, but I'm learning as I go. I think my biggest frustration comes from watching TV during/shortly after the Paris attacks. Almost all stations were discussing the politics of the situation. Even those who tried to make it sound like they were talking about the human side were only doing so for political gain, pandering to their audience. So I'll let the politicians do their thing and I'll keep trying to become a better human being. At the end of this life, the things I will have to answer for won't be about my thoughts on threat assessments, they will be about my feelings/actions about humanity.

I am not really disagreeing with you that the politics is there and I am sick of it as well but there is another non-political facet which shouldn't be ignored because some on both sides of the aisle have hijacked the issue

As to buying guns, there is a known and published process. I suppose I should say available and published. It is definitive, not perfect but certainly tangible.

What vetting process could possibly be in place for checking refugees from Syria? It is mind boggling to hear people describe it as 'vigorous'.

I wish you luck with your efforts towards becoming a more humane and compassionate person. I have always thought of Jimmie Carter as such a man. Not sure in the end it served the nation though.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 03:16 PM
This is what I was thinking. We didn't need to take in refugees for 9/11 to happen.

But, at the same time... you know the old saying about failing to learn from history and, in this case, all the refugees that the US took from Cuba back in the 70's and 80's and what happened to Miami as a result.

The "vetting process" that's being discussed... well, it's my understanding that many of the Cuban refugees that we took we hardened criminals that even Cuba couldn't handle, so they sent them off. If I'm not mistaken, the US government actually knew this.

So... there has to be a "right way" to handle this.

You are right, Castro basically emptied his prisons in the Mariel Boatlift. US authorities did know and refused citizenship to many. Not as many as some would tell it as the vast majority of those refugees were honest and hard working and were so in the US (and still are).

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 03:24 PM
You are right, Castro basically emptied his prisons in the Mariel Boatlift. US authorities did know and refused citizenship to many. Not as many as some would tell it as the vast majority of those refugees were honest and hard working and were so in the US (and still are).

TJ, Just curious. but, When's the last time you've been to Miami? not talking about South Beach.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 03:33 PM
I am not really disagreeing with you that the politics is there and I am sick of it as well but there is another non-political facet which shouldn't be ignored because some on both sides of the aisle have hijacked the issue

As to buying guns, there is a known and published process. I suppose I should say available and published. It is definitive, not perfect but certainly tangible.

What vetting process could possibly be in place for checking refugees from Syria? It is mind boggling to hear people describe it as 'vigorous'.

I wish you luck with your efforts towards becoming a more humane and compassionate person. I have always thought of Jimmie Carter as such a man. Not sure in the end it served the nation though.

It seems to me that it wouldn't be too hard to verify identities, cross reference with lists that we have for known terrorists, and make the decision on an individual basis that it should move pretty quickly. Would it be perfect? Nope. But we have people who come through customs/immigration on a daily basis through airports who are fooling the system.

24% of the people recruited by Isis in the U.S. have come from Somali refugees living in Minnesota. It's a high percentage, but still an overall low number. Of course we'd prefer it to be zero, but when our own citizens are being successfully recruited, it's pretty simple to explain why some of the Somali's are. I believe that we have turned more people away from extremism by bring them here and treating them relatively fairly than have actually been recruited.

I have no proof of that, no stats, but common sense shows that if you can take people away from a shitty situation and put them in a good situation they are going to be better people. Will some get by? Yup. But how many would-be extremists would be deterred from crossing that line? I'm willing to bet my life, and my families lives, that the benefit outweighs the cost.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 03:42 PM
TJ, Just curious. but, When's the last time you've been to Miami? not talking about South Beach.

It has been years and I am not really a South Beach kinda guy. Why to you ask?

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 03:48 PM
It has been years and I am not really a South Beach kinda guy. Why to you ask? Because man, the fucking Cuban's are killing and raping and selling drugs while the good, clean, law abiding South Beach American male is suffering. That's what the U.S. will turn into if we let refugees in. We're all going to be praying 5 times a day and, in between, listening to explosions going off in the background. Our towns will be taken over and Sharia law will be enforced. Why do you think Obama had all those military exercises going on? They weren't martial law exercises, they were Sharia law exercises.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 03:49 PM
It seems to me that it wouldn't be too hard to verify identities, cross reference with lists that we have for known terrorists, and make the decision on an individual basis that it should move pretty quickly. Would it be perfect? Nope. But we have people who come through customs/immigration on a daily basis through airports who are fooling the system.

24% of the people recruited by Isis in the U.S. have come from Somali refugees living in Minnesota. It's a high percentage, but still an overall low number. Of course we'd prefer it to be zero, but when our own citizens are being successfully recruited, it's pretty simple to explain why some of the Somali's are. I believe that we have turned more people away from extremism by bring them here and treating them relatively fairly than have actually been recruited.

I have no proof of that, no stats, but common sense shows that if you can take people away from a shitty situation and put them in a good situation they are going to be better people. Will some get by? Yup. But how many would-be extremists would be deterred from crossing that line? I'm willing to bet my life, and my families lives, that the benefit outweighs the cost.

You think 24% recruitment rate from one city is a low number? Sorry I don't see it that way. Eight people perpetrated the attacks in Paris. 24% of 150 (the number who the FBI believes have left the US to fight with ISIS) is 36.

While I agree that to change people's lives for the better is a good bet for turning them away from extremism in the case of the 150, every single one of them had been taken from a 'shitty situation' and placed is a much, much better one.

It's never as simple as a sound bite.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 03:51 PM
Because man, the fucking Cuban's are killing and raping and selling drugs while the good, clean, law abiding South Beach American male is suffering. That's what the U.S. will turn into if we let refugees in. We're all going to be praying 5 times a day and, in between, listening to explosions going off in the background. Our towns will be taken over and Sharia law will be enforced. Why do you think Obama had all those military exercises going on? They weren't martial law exercises, they were Sharia law exercises.

I'm sure RM has some message to give but I don't see him as a South Beach kinda guy either

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 03:58 PM
You think 24% recruitment rate from one city is a low number? Sorry I don't see it that way. Eight people perpetrated the attacks in Paris. 24% of 150 (the number who the FBI believes have left the US to fight with ISIS) is 36.

While I agree that to change people's lives for the better is a good bet for turning them away from extremism in the case of the 150, every single one of them had been taken from a 'shitty situation' and placed is a much, much better one.

It's never as simple as a sound bite.

36 in a country of 300 Million is pretty low number. It's still unacceptable, but it's pretty low.

Now, if all of those Somali's had been left where they were, how many would have went to fight with ISIS? We'll never know because you can't really prove a negative, but I think it's a fair bet to say it would be more than 36.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 04:07 PM
36 in a country of 300 Million is pretty low number. It's still unacceptable, but it's pretty low.

Now, if all of those Somali's had been left where they were, how many would have went to fight with ISIS? We'll never know because you can't really prove a negative, but I think it's a fair bet to say it would be more than 36.

That is actually two issues.

Those that fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq

Those that leave to US, train with ISIS and return to the US (because they have legal basis for doing so) and attack here.

In the case of the later, 36 is a very high number. Remember 8 out of 66 million.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 04:13 PM
That is actually two issues.

Those that fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq

Those that leave to US, train with ISIS and return to the US (because they have legal basis for doing so) and attack here.

In the case of the later, 36 is a very high number. Remember 8 out of 66 million.

I get your point, it's just that your argument is the same one that gun control advocates make about school shootings.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 04:13 PM
Because man, the fucking Cuban's are killing and raping and selling drugs while the good, clean, law abiding South Beach American male is suffering. That's what the U.S. will turn into if we let refugees in. We're all going to be praying 5 times a day and, in between, listening to explosions going off in the background. Our towns will be taken over and Sharia law will be enforced. Why do you think Obama had all those military exercises going on? They weren't martial law exercises, they were Sharia law exercises.

Yep, you said it oh Nobel one.

Go right ahead and scream Racist Xenophobe every time we try to have a discussion about what kind of country we want to live in. but,

Miami which used to be a fairly nice city is today mostly a complete shithole.

Because, After Castro emptied his jails and insane Asylums and (the completely predictable crime wave hit) most of the whites packed up and left for West Palm or Naples.

And that includes the White Cubans that had fled from Castro after the Commie purge.

Now, It's still a great place to be (if you're a rich Oligarch or a 25 year old supermodel living on south beach. But, parts of it are like a 3rd world country.

The school system is a complete shit show and crime is fucking horrible. gated communities in the Suburbs that we're nice just 15 years ago are covered in graffiti and littered with Garbage.

The slum lords love it.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 04:17 PM
Yep, you said it oh Nobel one.

Go right ahead and scream Racist Xenophobe every time we try to have a discussion about what kind of country we want to live in. but,

Miami which used to be a fairly nice city is today mostly a complete shithole.

Because, After Castro emptied his jails and insane Asylums and (the completely predictable crime wave hit) most of the whites packed up and left for West Palm or Naples.

And that includes the White Cubans that had fled from Castro after the Commie purge.

Now, It's still a great place to be (if you're a rich Oligarch or a 25 year old supermodel living on south beach. But, parts of it are like a 3rd world country.

The school system is a complete shit show and crime is fucking horrible. gated communities in the Suburbs that we're nice just 15 years ago are covered in graffiti and littered with Garbage.

The slum lords love it.

And how is this different than other urban areas around the country where the school systems suck and crime is high?

If we aren't careful people are going to be selling Picadillo at ever corner.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 04:21 PM
Go right ahead and scream Racist Xenophobe every time we try to have a discussion about what kind of country we want to live in. but,



What kind of country do we want to live in?

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 04:26 PM
I get your point, it's just that your argument is the same one that gun control advocates make about school shootings.

To a point. The problem with their argument is two fold:

1. Unless you talk of a complete and total ban on ALL guns their stated solution will not (despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary) keep any child (or adult) safe.

2. The real common factor in almost every mass shooting incident since the UT tower shooting in 1966 is mental health. A bent individual who had mental health issues. Gun control won't help that issue.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 04:29 PM
Yep, you said it oh Nobel one.

Go right ahead and scream Racist Xenophobe every time we try to have a discussion about what kind of country we want to live in. but,

Miami which used to be a fairly nice city is today mostly a complete shithole.

Because, After Castro emptied his jails and insane Asylums and (the completely predictable crime wave hit) most of the whites packed up and left for West Palm or Naples.

And that includes the White Cubans that had fled from Castro after the Commie purge.

Now, It's still a great place to be (if you're a rich Oligarch or a 25 year old supermodel living on south beach. But, parts of it are like a 3rd world country.

The school system is a complete shit show and crime is fucking horrible. gated communities in the Suburbs that we're nice just 15 years ago are covered in graffiti and littered with Garbage.

The slum lords love it.

RM, I am not sure your cause and effect is really valid. You are correct that parts of the Miami area are shitholes. Homestead is one such place. gate guards at the old Homestead AFB used to regularly report gunfire in the area, sometimes directed in their direction. I just don't think you can pin this solely on the Cuban population.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 04:29 PM
2. The real common factor in almost every mass shooting incident since the UT tower shooting in 1966 is mental health. A bent individual who had mental health issues. Gun control won't help that issue. Nor will not allowing refugees fix the mental health issues that cause extremism.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 04:33 PM
Nor will not allowing refugees fix the mental health issues that cause extremism.

Certainly is some cases I suppose there are mental health issues involved but I am not sure you can universally apply a mental health issue to those who turn to Islamic extremism. Certainly not to the extent of those who perpetrate mass shootings. Seems a stretch to make that comparison.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 04:38 PM
And how is this different than other urban areas around the country where the school systems suck and crime is high?

If we aren't careful people are going to be selling Picadillo at ever corner.

It's not. basically every minority-majority run city in America is a progressive shithole, with a huge wealth inequality.

It just happened later to Miami than Detroit and the rest of the Northeast.

Other than Over town and Liberty City Miami used to be beautiful. with a huge middle class

But, After Carter and the Mariel boatlift

Only 20 years later it's Local Government went bankrupt and 1/3rd of the City was in abject poverty.

Now, it's had some gentrification of late, largely fueled by foreign Real Estate Speculators parking money.

They just pushed the Rif raft out to the burbs.

But, it's going to crash again, whenever the Fed decides to pop the next bubble.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 04:40 PM
What kind of country do we want to live in?

Stick your head in the sand to your own peril.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 04:41 PM
Certainly is some cases I suppose there are mental health issues involved but I am not sure you can universally apply a mental health issue to those who turn to Islamic extremism. Certainly not to the extent of those who perpetrate mass shootings. Seems a stretch to make that comparison.

Really? You don't think that someone strapping a bomb to themselves and setting it off shows poor mental health?

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 04:43 PM
Stick your head in the sand to your own peril.

So just like every politician, you don't have a way to fix it. Or are you saying that we get rid of all minorities? I've always seen your posts as kind of comical and meant to cause arguments, but are you really suggesting the removal of all minorities? If I'm misunderstanding you, please correct me.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 04:53 PM
RM, I am not sure your cause and effect is really valid. You are correct that parts of the Miami area are shitholes. Homestead is one such place. gate guards at the old Homestead AFB used to regularly report gunfire in the area, sometimes directed in their direction. I just don't think you can pin this solely on the Cuban population.

I'm not blaming it on the the Cubans. As, I said. The Old Cuban population was thriving in Miami.

They moved to Napels, Marco Island West Plam and Broward. Go to those places today and what you will find are Clean Neighborhoods, Good schools and very little crime.

The turning point for Miami was the Miaral Boat lift (unvetted refugees), Followed by the Old money leaving and Swarms of Immigrants coming in from other third world shitholes.

But, like I said Miami's still great. if you're a property owner on South beach.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 04:59 PM
Really? You don't think that someone strapping a bomb to themselves and setting it off shows poor mental health?

Not in the sense in comparing it to the active shooters we were discussing.

There is a difference in someone like, for example, James Holmes (Colorado theater) or Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) and a young man or woman who has been methodically indoctrinated to the point of strapping on a bomb

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 05:01 PM
I'm not blaming it on the the Cubans. As, I said. The Old Cuban population was thriving in Miami.

They moved to Napels, Marco Island West Plam and Broward. Go to those places today and what you will find are Clean Neighborhoods, Good schools and very little crime.

The turning point for Miami was the Miaral Boat lift (unvetted refugees), Followed by the Old money leaving and Swarms of Immigrants coming in from other third world shitholes.

But, like I said Miami's still great. if you're a property owner on South beach.

Much of what you said here is correct except the facts and figures about the boatlift folks. While Scarface showed one side, the reality is a very small percentage of the boatlift folks were true criminals. The Haitian influx may have indeed played a role, I just don't know but as I said, I may agree with your assessment of the condition but not how it got there (cause and effect). Of course I don't live there so have to rely on what I read.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2015, 05:49 PM
So just like every politician, you don't have a way to fix it. Or are you saying that we get rid of all minorities? I've always seen your posts as kind of comical and meant to cause arguments, but are you really suggesting the removal of all minorities? If I'm misunderstanding you, please correct me.

I used to think he was joking, but not anymore.

He'd set up a white homeland if he could.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 05:53 PM
So just like every politician, you don't have a way to fix it. Or are you saying that we get rid of all minorities? I've always seen your posts as kind of comical and meant to cause arguments, but are you really suggesting the removal of all minorities? If I'm misunderstanding you, please correct me.

As a matter of principle, I think granting Amnesty to Illegals is an insult to anyone who's here legally

Now, I don't think deporting people would really even be necessary. IF all entitlements for illegals were eliminated and IF automatic U.S. citizenship for their anchor babies was eliminated and IF they'd crack down on the employers who hired illegals with jail time,

then the illegals would probably not stay in the US, if they couldn't find work.

I don't think a wall is really necessary IF you put a Division on the border.

But, I'm not against it either.

However, anybody who's Illegally here and has committed a crime needs to be immediately Deported.

I don't think we really even need Any immigration.

So, I think there should be a moratorium on all Immigration Legal and Illegal until such time as proven otherwise that we need it.


But, if we're going to have it, then I think we need an immigration policy focused on what we actually need an not just flooding the country with 3rd world Migrants and refugees to suppress the value of labor and promote the Rainbow Diversity utopian fantasy, that all the world's problems are going to solved as soon as we dilute the dominate White majority in all the NATO countries.

In a nutshell. I think we need to Reject the altruistic- communist collectivistic ideas of the left and the zionist mysticism of the right.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 05:53 PM
Maybe part of the issue is that we don't disperse refugees as well as we should. You can't take people who have live with poverty and oppression their entire lives, shove them all in one small area, and expect them to succeed. That makes it very difficult to integrate into a new society.

I saw it all the time living overseas in the military. The majority of Americans live on or near the base, never fully interact with the locals, and continue acting as they would if they were living in the states. The only ones who get the full experience and understanding of the culture are those who move away from the base.

If you take 1000 poverty stricken people of one culture from a location and stick them in a poverty stricken, single location, in the U.S., they are going to continue to live their lives the exact same way.

Rusty Jones
11-19-2015, 05:58 PM
Maybe part of the issue is that we don't disperse refugees as well as we should. You can't take people who have live with poverty and oppression their entire lives, shove them all in one small area, and expect them to succeed. That makes it very difficult to integrate into a new society.

I saw it all the time living overseas in the military. The majority of Americans live on or near the base, never fully interact with the locals, and continue acting as they would if they were living in the states. The only ones who get the full experience and understanding of the culture are those who move away from the base.

If you take 1000 poverty stricken people of one culture from a location and stick them in a poverty stricken, single location, in the U.S., they are going to continue to live their lives the exact same way.

^^^Looks like someone has read their shit about public housing after WWII! But weren't you against mixed-income housing?

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:00 PM
But, if we're going to have it, then I think we need an immigration policy focused on what we actually need an not just flooding the country with 3rd world Migrants and refugees to suppress the value of labor and promote the Rainbow Diversity utopian fantasy, that all the world's problems are going to solved as soon as we dilute the dominate White majority in all the NATO countries.



"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Just as a reminder, that's the quote on the second most popular symbol of our freedom (the flag being the first). It doesn't say, "Give us your trained, your educated, your best, so that they may save the economy of the U.S.".

The quote on the Statue of Liberty describes the refugees you despise so much to a tee. Anyone can take in someone who is going to be an asset. It takes a much higher morality to take in someone you know might be a burden.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:02 PM
^^^Looks like someone has read their shit about public housing after WWII! But weren't you against mixed-income housing?

I don't think I've ever said anything about mixed-income housing. If I did and it didn't mirror what I just said then I was previously wrong.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 06:06 PM
Maybe part of the issue is that we don't disperse refugees as well as we should. You can't take people who have live with poverty and oppression their entire lives, shove them all in one small area, and expect them to succeed. That makes it very difficult to integrate into a new society.

I saw it all the time living overseas in the military. The majority of Americans live on or near the base, never fully interact with the locals, and continue acting as they would if they were living in the states. The only ones who get the full experience and understanding of the culture are those who move away from the base.

If you take 1000 poverty stricken people of one culture from a location and stick them in a poverty stricken, single location, in the U.S., they are going to continue to live their lives the exact same way.

I think is many cases this is a decision the individual themselves make.

Somali's in Minn?

Absinthe Anecdote
11-19-2015, 06:07 PM
Really? You don't think that someone strapping a bomb to themselves and setting it off shows poor mental health?

I think you could make a strong argument for it being similar to people who are indoctrinated into cults.

Still it is very different from schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis.

I think it is more of having a completely different value system, and rationalizing their actions with religious ideology.

I'll agree that it isn't what I consider to be healthy and rational.

However, there are a few extreme circumstances where I might volunteer to do something that would result in my death, like running a satchel charge up to an enemy bunker.

It would not include using myself as a bomb to target civilians.

Maybe the closest I would get to that would probably blowing myself up with a grenade on the battlefield to avoid capture while taking out my would be captors.

Again, that's kind of crazy, but not really.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:07 PM
I think is many cases this is a decision the individual themselves make.

Somali's in Minn?

Yes, the majority of Somali refugees were "place" in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 06:08 PM
Maybe part of the issue is that we don't disperse refugees as well as we should.

They're already being disbursed. There are over 180 State Department Processing centers.

Many of them are associated with the churches who are making money hand over fist in this scam.

http://www.wrapsnet.org/Portals/1/Affiliate%20Directory%20Posting/FY%202014%20Affiliate%20Directory/Public%20Affiliate%20Directory%209-09-15.pdf

Part of the problem is that the feds will put them in a small town, and they inundate the local community resources.

In case you haven't figured it out yet. Pregnant Women and Babies and People who can't speak English are a net drain on the economy, for all but the people servicing them.

If you're interested, You can call up the POCs at state Dept. and offer to house a Family from Somalia in your House if you want. (you'll even get paid to do it). But, the neighbors might not like you anymore.

Rusty Jones
11-19-2015, 06:08 PM
I don't think I've ever said anything about mixed-income housing. If I did and it didn't mirror what I just said then I was previously wrong.

It may not have been you. In any case, what you were saying is the reasoning behind mixed-income housing, and an explanation behind the failure of housing projects. "Concentration of poverty" is what they call it. Break up the poor, spread them among the middle class, and they see the things that they could have... and, most importantly, they see what's done to obtain those things.

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 06:10 PM
Yes, the majority of Somali refugees were "place" in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

Were they? I always wondered how they got there. They haven't really moved though. I think much of that decision is the normal desire to be among their own.

EDIT: Just found an article that explains it in a bit more detail.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/good-question-why-did-somalis-locate-here/

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:11 PM
They're already being disbursed. There are over 180 State Department Processing centers.

Many of them are associated with the churches who are making money hand over fist in this scam.

http://www.wrapsnet.org/Portals/1/Affiliate%20Directory%20Posting/FY%202014%20Affiliate%20Directory/Public%20Affiliate%20Directory%209-09-15.pdf

Part of the problem is that the feds will put them in a small town, and they inundate the local community resources.

In case you haven't figured it out yet. Pregnant Women and Babies and People who can't speak English are a net drain on the economy, for all but the people servicing them.

If you're interested, You can call up the POCs at state Dept. and offer to house a Family from Somalia in your House if you want. (you'll even get paid to do it). But, the neighbors might not like you anymore.

Of course they are a "drain". But that's the choice we made when we became a nation...that we would be the ones who took on that responsibility. There is much I would change, don't get me wrong. But closing the doors isn't the option, IMO.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:13 PM
It may not have been you. In any case, what you were saying is the reasoning behind mixed-income housing, and an explanation behind the failure of housing projects. "Concentration of poverty" is what they call it. Break up the poor, spread them among the middle class, and they see the things that they could have... and, most importantly, they see what's done to obtain those things.

I think that could be a little more difficult now, with those who already live here. I'm not sure, but I'm sure there are various studies on that. I think it's a much easier prospect with new immigrant/refugees, etc. I've never really had the conversation with someone living in a concentration of poverty, so I don't even know if they'd be willing to go for that.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:16 PM
Were they? I always wondered how they got there. They haven't really moved though. I think much of that decision is the normal desire to be among their own.Exactly, which means that they don't fully integrate into the different culture. Which is why so many are willing to turn to ISIS or to gangs...because that's what they had before they came here and they don't know any different.

I think it was kind of a cruel joke on the Somali's, however. Everyone knows that black people hate the cold...then they get stuck in a northern tier state. What did the government expect to happen!!!

TJMAC77SP
11-19-2015, 06:16 PM
Of course they are a "drain". But that's the choice we made when we became a nation...that we would be the ones who took on that responsibility. There is much I would change, don't get me wrong. But closing the doors isn't the option, IMO.

That is one problem I see with all the posturing going on. Once again the political process has reduced it to an either/or situation. A choice between two absolutes.

- Open the doors wide open to all at all times

- Close the door completely


Silly logic really.

There are other choices. I would like some reasonable official to speak to that. Perhaps they have but their pulpit is too small.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 06:17 PM
The quote on the Statue of Liberty describes the refugees you despise so much to a tee. Anyone can take in someone who is going to be an asset. It takes a much higher morality to take in someone you know might be a burden.


We don't have a labor shortage today. We're not in the industrial revolution anymore.

Back then, We were expanding West. They were also mostly White, Christian and Came from Europe. There was no ESOL class. There also was no welfare and they processed through a center and got papers, And If they didn't work they fucking starved.

which is always the part left out in this little Utopian fantasy Scenario.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 06:23 PM
Of course they are a "drain". But that's the choice we made when we became a nation....

This statement is Complete and Utter Bullshit.

The founders never made a choice to bring in foreign people and Let them live on the backs of the current citizenry until they got on their feet.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:26 PM
That is one problem I see with all the posturing going on. Once again the political process has reduced it to an either/or situation. A choice between two absolutes.

- Open the doors wide open to all at all times

- Close the door completely


Silly logic really.

There are other choices. I would like some reasonable official to speak to that. Perhaps they have but their pulpit is too small.On this point, we agree.

Rusty Jones
11-19-2015, 06:28 PM
Exactly, which means that they don't fully integrate into the different culture. Which is why so many are willing to turn to ISIS or to gangs...because that's what they had before they came here and they don't know any different.

I think it was kind of a cruel joke on the Somali's, however. Everyone knows that black people hate the cold...then they get stuck in a northern tier state. What did the government expect to happen!!!

Anthropologists consider Somalis to be caucasian, since their skull structure and DNA is closer to that of Europeans than most Africans. Jus' sayin'

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:34 PM
We don't have a labor shortage today. We're not in the industrial revolution anymore.

Back then, We were expanding West. They were also mostly White, Christian and Came from Europe. There was no ESOL class. There also was no welfare and they processed through a center and got papers, And If they didn't work they fucking starved.

which is always the part left out in this little Utopian fantasy Scenario.It doesn't matter if we have a labor shortage or not. I've reviewed the quote just to be sure, and it definitely doesn't say "bring us your...until the industrial revolution is over". And nowhere does it say that the poor, homeless masses had to be white Europeans.

Also, you use the excuse that "times have changed" to refute this but you refuse to consider the change of times for any sort of restriction on gun laws. I realize that the statement on the Statue of Liberty isn't a Constitutional Right, but it's been the motto of this country, the backbone of our way of life as Americans since were receive the statue.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:34 PM
Anthropologists consider Somalis to be caucasian, since their skull structure and DNA is closer to that of Europeans than most Africans. Jus' sayin'I was not aware of that. Interesting.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 06:37 PM
This statement is Complete and Utter Bullshit.

The founders never made a choice to bring in foreign people and Let them live on the backs of the current citizenry until they got on their feet.Right...the founders made the choice to bring in foreign people as slaves and let the current citizenry live on their backs until they became rich. We wouldn't want anyone to think that the founders were anything other than faultless.

UncaRastus
11-19-2015, 07:01 PM
Just some thoughts. In the past a lot of people moved westward because of the claims of getting rich by them getting to a place where gold was the most common rock to be found. Which turned out to be wrong.

A lot, if not most of the prospectors were poor to start with, and became even more poor upon trying to scratch out the riches that they thought was theirs for the taking.

In the past, many came to the US, because they believed that becoming rich was a foregone conclusion. Wrong again.

Now, do poor people come over here for the same reason, of getting rich, in some of the immigrants minds?

Not all of them, of course. But don't a lot of immigrants hold this 'dream of wealth', which prompts them to come here?

I believe that some of them dream of a life of peace, as opposed to how their countries are being inundated with Al Qaeda and ISIS fighters.

But how can we ever prove what their children are holding in their hearts? Or what will be in their hearts in years to come?

To me, this presents a huge problem to us.

Also, some inmates in prisons over here that convert to become Muslims. I would think that not all that is being taught in our prisons is all about peace and love.

I think that the USA is in for some pretty bad times in the future, with 'embedded' terrorists, or future terrorists that can blossom from being moderate Muslims, into becoming terrorists, the way it is now and in the future.

What do we do now? Place the lot of them into internment camps? I believe that there is place named Manzanilla, where Japanese people were held during World War 2. It is basically there to remind us of what not to do.

Do we stop all Muslims from coming over here? That sort of reminds me of a time when Jewish people having been delivered, that we sent back to die in concentration camps, during World War 2.

Do we allow Muslims to enter, knowing that there are certainly some bad actors included?

Terrorist acts did happen here, before 9/11. Remember the Trade Center being attacked, before then?

The FBI is working to stop attacks here. But they can't catch all of the bad guys.

Do we consider that all of the regular Muslims have moved out, and nuke ISIS? After all, they have used mustard gas, already.

Do we, as a nation, become just as Germany was, or the USSR was, afraid to speak our minds, because of gov't intrusion into our lives?

Do we accept even more intrusions?

I don't really know what to think or say about this problem, any more. I figure that no matter what I say or think, I am damned if I do, or damned if I don't.

I do think, and I will say it here, the gov't needs some amplified way of checking out immigrants in the future.

I don't believe that terrorists are the poor, the huddled masses. They are combatants sent over here to kill American citizens.

How do we stop this from happening? I, for one, don't know the answer to that.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 07:07 PM
I don't believe that terrorists are the poor, the huddled masses. They are combatants sent over here to kill American citizens.

How do we stop this from happening? I, for one, don't know the answer to that.I don't believe that, either. The huge majority of those 10,000 people are the poor, huddled masses. They are the epitome of it.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 07:09 PM
Right...the founders made the choice to bring in foreign people as slaves and let the current citizenry live on their backs until they became rich. We wouldn't want anyone to think that the founders were anything other than faultless.

I see now, that You must have been off at Communist reeducation camp for these last 6 months.

I presume You swore an oath to protect and defend the US constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and not to an inscription on a French Sculpture?

The Constitution is the Legally binding law of the land .

Maybe you should move to one of those heavily Muslim "no go zones" in the socialist Paris Utopia. You can Do your part for humanity.

Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite and all that.

As for slavery. It's an interesting subject. .

Slavery was in place long before the founders were ever born.

The Arab slave trade preceded the Atlantic slave trade by centuries.

Maybe, You can look into who financed this trade as well and report back to enlighten the rest of us here on the forum?

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 07:12 PM
I see now, that You must have been off at Communist reeducation camp for these last 6 months.

I presume You swore an oath to protect and defend the US constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and not to an inscription on a French Sculpture?

The Constitution is the Legally binding law of the land .

Maybe you should move to one of those heavily Muslim "no go zones" in the socialist Paris Utopia. You can Do your part for humanity.

Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite and all that.

As for slavery. It's an interesting subject. .

Slavery was in place long before the founders were ever born.

The Arab slave trade preceded the Atlantic slave trade by centuries.

Maybe, You can look into who financed this trade as well and report back to enlighten the rest of us here on the forum?

If any of this rant were relevant to anything posted previously, I might care.

garhkal
11-19-2015, 07:57 PM
Let's call out the hypocrisy when it's so obvious.

People want the government to "pause" bringing in the refugees in order to give enough time to do thorough background checks to ensure the safety of American citizens because, as has been said, even though most are good people, some of them are sure to be extremists and will harm us.

These same people do not want to institute stricter background checks for guns, which would give enough time to do thorough background checks to ensure the safety of the American citizens because, let's be honest, even though most gun owners are good people, some of them are sure to be extremists and will harm us.

I think the issue on those gun checks, is we have seen it has not caught mental problems which were not reported. So having MORE stringent checks, wouldn't change that fact. That is why people are against the more backround checks.


Vast majority of America doesn't want the government to flood the country with refugees.

I believe that is a good chunk of it.. When our finances still are not recovered after the 08 bubble crash, and we have 11 mil+ illegal immigrants already here, why flood our country with more who will more than likely end up on the government welfare rolls?


We already have background checks, but most gun violence is committed by hood rats using stolen handguns. They don't submit to background checks

Also, guns are supposedly flat out banned in France, but that did not stop these terrorists getting their hands on fully automatic machine guns (AK-47s)..


We already do. In fact we've taken in 30 Million+ in the last 3 decades already. Why should we take more from the Middle East? How many is going to be enough?

Especially when many of their fellow Arab nations have taken in NONE..


You think 24% recruitment rate from one city is a low number? Sorry I don't see it that way. Eight people perpetrated the attacks in Paris. 24% of 150 (the number who the FBI believes have left the US to fight with ISIS) is 36.

While I agree that to change people's lives for the better is a good bet for turning them away from extremism in the case of the 150, every single one of them had been taken from a 'shitty situation' and placed is a much, much better one.

It's never as simple as a sound bite.

Nor would i call 24% a low number. Heck LGBTs make up for less than 2% of the US population, and we already amended our laws to cater to them.


As a matter of principle, I think granting Amnesty to Illegals is an insult to anyone who's here legally

Now, I don't think deporting people would really even be necessary. IF all entitlements for illegals were eliminated and IF automatic U.S. citizenship for their anchor babies was eliminated and IF they'd crack down on the employers who hired illegals with jail time,

then the illegals would probably not stay in the US, if they couldn't find work.

I don't think a wall is really necessary IF you put a Division on the border.

So do i. For a long time now, i have felt granting amnesty to Illegal immigrants is a slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands each year who spend the time and money to do it legally.
And if you turn off the tap of aid, shelter etc, many will self deport.


Just as a reminder, that's the quote on the second most popular symbol of our freedom (the flag being the first). It doesn't say, "Give us your trained, your educated, your best, so that they may save the economy of the U.S.".

The quote on the Statue of Liberty describes the refugees you despise so much to a tee. Anyone can take in someone who is going to be an asset. It takes a much higher morality to take in someone you know might be a burden.

Sand.. that is true that quote Is on the statue of liberty, right next to Ellis island where we DID process immigrants coming in. And we did turn plenty away, mostly for having diseases we didn't want in this country.
Now days, it seems that we don't even do that. We care not what diseases get brought in.


Of course they are a "drain". But that's the choice we made when we became a nation...that we would be the ones who took on that responsibility. There is much I would change, don't get me wrong. But closing the doors isn't the option, IMO.

Funny, i don't remember that vote, where we as a nation got to decide/made the choice that we would take on the responsibility of accepting everyone elses' dregs of society.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 08:15 PM
If any of this rant were relevant to anything posted previously, I might care.

Typical liberal cry bully response.

Hypocrites like you and Abs love to make your own hyperbolic statements and then whine like little bitches whenever we react in kind.

These people have been safe (although miserable) for years in refugee camps and now all of a sudden they need to be turned lose on Europe and be shipped half way across the world (at our expense) and forced into our communities where they can immediately form into hostile gangs?

Many of these people were doing just fine until we started intentionally destabilizing the Syrian Regime, to do the bidding of demented Saudi King and imperialistic Zionist state the size of New Jersey (in order to create a Salafist state to act as check on Iran).

Guess How many Syrian Refugees Israel is taking in?

Answer: ZERO

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/world/middleeast/netanyahu-rejects-calls-to-accept-syrian-refugees.html?_r=1

Or for that matter... How bout the GCC "allies" that have been funding them?

Answer: ZERO

This is all open source information that anyone can look up.

But, most people chose to remain Morons and believe ISIS just mysteriously rose up from the desert as an unstoppable jugger naught and not recognize the obvious (that's happening right in front of their fucking eyes).

Anyhow SJ, Unlike Abs (who is either hired or retarded) I do believe you're well intentioned

so, If you really want to help the people in the Middle East stop Islamic terrorism, then the best way for you to do that is to call up your local representative and demand that they....... STOP FUNDING AND ARMING ISLAMIC FUCKING TERRORISTS!

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 09:01 PM
Anthropologists consider Somalis to be caucasian, since their skull structure and DNA is closer to that of Europeans than most Africans. Jus' sayin'

What's a Caucasian?

I thought the anthropologists said race was just a social construction.

MikeKerriii
11-19-2015, 09:07 PM
Typical liberal cry bully response.

Hypocrites like you and Abs love to make your own hyperbolic statements and then whine like little bitches whenever we react in kind.

These people have been safe (although miserable) for years in refugee camps and now all of a sudden they need to be turned lose on Europe and be shipped half way across the world (at our expense) and forced into our communities where they can immediately form into hostile gangs?

Many of these people were doing just fine until we started intentionally destabilizing the Syrian Regime, to do the bidding of demented Saudi King and imperialistic Zionist state the size of New Jersey (in order to create a Salafist state to act as check on Iran).

Guess How many Syrian Refugees Israel is taking in?

Answer: ZERO

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/world/middleeast/netanyahu-rejects-calls-to-accept-syrian-refugees.html?_r=1

Or for that matter... How bout the GCC "allies" that have been funding them?

Answer: ZERO

This is all open source information that anyone can look up.

But, most people chose to remain Morons and believe ISIS just mysteriously rose up from the desert as an unstoppable jugger naught and not recognize the obvious (that's happening right in front of their fucking eyes).

Anyhow SJ, Unlike Abs (who is either hired or retarded) I do believe you're well intentioned

so, If you really want to help the people in the Middle East stop Islamic terrorism, then the best way for you to do that is to call up your local representative and demand that they....... STOP FUNDING AND ARMING ISLAMIC FUCKING TERRORISTS!

It turns out Rainmaker you are sadly not as far out on the fringe as sane people would like.

Trump for example seems to be openly taking to Nazis as a role model

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/trump-crosses-the-nazi-line-maybe-muslims-should-wear-special-id-badges/ I would suggest that he remain true to the historical precedent for that kind of thought and go with yellows stars as ID. He can do the same with his proposed deportation force by giving them spiffy brown uniforms, The can even have a black T on an arm band to make it look like it source material. How in the hell is the vile human garbage leading party in a presidential race for POTUS? How could anyone but garbage support his policies in this area.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/trump-crosses-the-nazi-line-maybe-muslims-should-wear-special-id-badges/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260727-trump-wont-rule-out-database-special-id-for-muslims

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-says-muslims-america-should-carry-special-id-evokes-holocaust-syrian-2192206

Some of his fellow republicans are happy to goosestep right beside him. Not all of them or even a majority thankfully; The Gov. of TN has called out this BS for exampled

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/rhode-island-republican-wants-syrian-refugees-held-in-centralized-camps-our-country-is-under-attack/

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/17/tennessee-gop-leader-round-up-syrian-refugees-remove-state/75936660/

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/national_guard_should_round_up.html

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 09:27 PM
Typical liberal cry bully response.

Hypocrites like you and Abs love to make your own hyperbolic statements and then whine like little bitches whenever we react in kind.

These people have been safe (although miserable) for years in refugee camps and now all of a sudden they need to be turned lose on Europe and be shipped half way across the world (at our expense) and forced into our communities where they can immediately form into hostile gangs?

Many of these people were doing just fine until we started intentionally destabilizing the Syrian Regime, to do the bidding of demented Saudi King and imperialistic Zionist state the size of New Jersey (in order to create a Salafist state to act as check on Iran).

Guess How many Syrian Refugees Israel is taking in?

Answer: ZERO

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/world/middleeast/netanyahu-rejects-calls-to-accept-syrian-refugees.html?_r=1

Or for that matter... How bout the GCC "allies" that have been funding them?

Answer: ZERO

This is all open source information that anyone can look up.

But, most people chose to remain Morons and believe ISIS just mysteriously rose up from the desert as an unstoppable jugger naught and not recognize the obvious (that's happening right in front of their fucking eyes).

Anyhow SJ, Unlike Abs (who is either hired or retarded) I do believe you're well intentioned

so, If you really want to help the people in the Middle East stop Islamic terrorism, then the best way for you to do that is to call up your local representative and demand that they....... STOP FUNDING AND ARMING ISLAMIC FUCKING TERRORISTS!

You really want to base our choices and decisions on what other countries are doing? You, of all people, are going to use Israel as a country you'd like to follow in this instance? I guess they are only the devil when it fits your narrative.

Oh, and I agree that we need to stop funding people. That never works out good. But, even if we stopped that today, we still have the refugees that we're currently dealing with, that we helped create by arming the terrorists. We share the responsibility for that very reason.

We should never give another cent to another "rebel" group. There is no doubt about that. That doesn't help us with what's already taken place.

sandsjames
11-19-2015, 09:45 PM
I think the issue on those gun checks, is we have seen it has not caught mental problems which were not reported. So having MORE stringent checks, wouldn't change that fact. That is why people are against the more backround checks.



I believe that is a good chunk of it.. When our finances still are not recovered after the 08 bubble crash, and we have 11 mil+ illegal immigrants already here, why flood our country with more who will more than likely end up on the government welfare rolls?



Also, guns are supposedly flat out banned in France, but that did not stop these terrorists getting their hands on fully automatic machine guns (AK-47s)..



Especially when many of their fellow Arab nations have taken in NONE..



Nor would i call 24% a low number. Heck LGBTs make up for less than 2% of the US population, and we already amended our laws to cater to them.



So do i. For a long time now, i have felt granting amnesty to Illegal immigrants is a slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands each year who spend the time and money to do it legally.
And if you turn off the tap of aid, shelter etc, many will self deport.



Sand.. that is true that quote Is on the statue of liberty, right next to Ellis island where we DID process immigrants coming in. And we did turn plenty away, mostly for having diseases we didn't want in this country.
Now days, it seems that we don't even do that. We care not what diseases get brought in.



Funny, i don't remember that vote, where we as a nation got to decide/made the choice that we would take on the responsibility of accepting everyone elses' dregs of society.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not a proponent of "gun control" at all. I was merely using that as an analogy vs. the fear of safety/security threats of refugees. Bad people are going to do bad things. That doesn't mean you punish the 99% of the people who aren't a problem.

And these refugees would be coming in legally. They would be processed, as opposed to sneaking across the border. I'm surprised that conservatives have a problem with that because the argument has always been "Immigration is fine, as long as they do it legally".

As far as you not remembering the vote, you weren't alive yet, just when you weren't alive for the vote of free speech, right to bear arms, etc, allowing women to vote, etc. Doesn't mean that it wasn't decided at some point.

I also wouldn't be so quick to call 10,000 refugees "dregs of society". Some of them may be. Most were born into a shitty situation with no way to help themselves.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 10:01 PM
we still have the refugees that we're currently dealing with, We share the responsibility for that very reason.



No we don't.

the public never supported any intervention in Syria. Which is why Obama had to eat crow on his red line bullshit because no one would support it.

Cameron even lost a commons vote in parliament over it.

So they intentionally unleashed a migration on Europe to create a Humanitarian disaster and demand for action.

Now people are fucking dying and the knee jerk reaction is ramped up again.

Totally predictable and all by design.

There's no reason why they can't be housed in the middle east. Other than treasonous politicians who cowtow to foreign interests.

Rusty Jones
11-19-2015, 10:08 PM
And these refugees would be coming in legally. They would be processed, as opposed to sneaking across the border. I'm surprised that conservatives have a problem with that because the argument has always been "Immigration is fine, as long as they do it legally".

You're now beginning to realize how much hogwash this argument is, if you didn't already know. Someone is here illegally? Well, I hope for their sake that they don't get caught. If they do... it's their ass, not mine. I care about that about as much as I care about someone stealing a soda from Walmart. It's their ass that's on the line, not mine.

The point is that the "legal" aspect of immigration is no one's business, but the government's and the immigrant's.

If someone is going to give a reason for not liking something, then... "because it's against the law" is bullshit. The law doesn't dictate what anyone's morals are or what they should be. They need to dig a bit deeper and state what the real reason is.

I think that "because it's against the law" serves to purposes for those who are so worried about illegal immigration: it provides something to hide behind, and it suggests that immigrants try their hand at the red tape in hopes that they get frustrated and go home.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 10:17 PM
It turns out Rainmaker you are sadly not as far out on the fringe as sane people would like.

Trump for example seems to be openly taking to Nazis as a role model

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/trump-crosses-the-nazi-line-maybe-muslims-should-wear-special-id-badges/ I would suggest that he remain true to the historical precedent for that kind of thought and go with yellows stars as ID. He can do the same with his proposed deportation force by giving them spiffy brown uniforms, The can even have a black T on an arm band to make it look like it source material. How in the hell is the vile human garbage leading party in a presidential race for POTUS? How could anyone but garbage support his policies in this area.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/trump-crosses-the-nazi-line-maybe-muslims-should-wear-special-id-badges/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260727-trump-wont-rule-out-database-special-id-for-muslims

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-says-muslims-america-should-carry-special-id-evokes-holocaust-syrian-2192206

Some of his fellow republicans are happy to goosestep right beside him. Not all of them or even a majority thankfully; The Gov. of TN has called out this BS for exampled

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/rhode-island-republican-wants-syrian-refugees-held-in-centralized-camps-our-country-is-under-attack/

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/17/tennessee-gop-leader-round-up-syrian-refugees-remove-state/75936660/

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/national_guard_should_round_up.html


Trump already said Israel will be protected.

He's not gonna let them run the country into the ground anymore and they may even have to bring some jobs back.

But, His daughter married a Jew and is raising his grandkids that way.

So you can spare us the NAZI hysteria Mike. No one's having a pogrom here.

efmbman
11-19-2015, 11:41 PM
No it's a retarded callout.

The 2nd and 4th Amendment protections apply to US citizens, not foreign nationals fleeing from displaced persons camps in Turkey and Jordan.

Apples and oranges.
From what I understand, anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall enjoy the protections provided by the Constitution. The courts have ruled on this many time. Those protections are not limited to citizens.

Rainmaker
11-19-2015, 11:57 PM
From what I understand, anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall enjoy the protections provided by the Constitution. The courts have ruled on this many time. Those protections are not limited to citizens.

We're talking about people that are not here yet.

But anchor baby status will be tested at the supreme court and then we'll know and move out from there.

MikeKerriii
11-20-2015, 03:12 AM
Can someone point me to the reference that 70% of the Syrian refugees are middle aged men? I keep seeing that spouted in various social media, but I haven't seen where that number has come from. Not trying to be snarky...just want to see a reliable source.

The people responsible for gather that data have different numbers. The 70% number is simply a lie being spread by the dishonest or the dimwitted. is most case it looks like both terms apply, Is not only a lie is is a clumsy lie.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php


That kind of "fact" is something normally handled with toilet paper but some seem to choose put it is their mouths instead

TJMAC77SP
11-20-2015, 04:03 AM
The people responsible for gather that data have different numbers. The 70% number is simply a lie being spread by the dishonest or the dimwitted. is most case it looks like both terms apply, Is not only a lie is is a clumsy lie.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php


That kind of "fact" is something normally handled with toilet paper but some seem to choose put it is their mouths instead


You are right. It would appear that the 18-59 male group accounts for 22.1% which is slightly less than all the other male groups combined. The same can be said for the female groups, which the French police learned just today can't be dismissed as a threat group. Clumsy lie indeed.

Rainmaker
11-20-2015, 04:42 AM
You are right. It would appear that the 18-59 male group accounts for 22.1% which is slightly less than all the other male groups combined. The same can be said for the female groups, which the French police learned just today can't be dismissed as a threat group. Clumsy lie indeed.

Those are the numbers for registered refugees outside Europe in camps

Ahhh. fuck it. we refugeed some folks...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBa7pJo-yPg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_GYlnC5g2M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfrpwAEMe0c

Rainmaker
11-21-2015, 04:40 AM
Ten Jewish Groups Urge Congress to Allow Syrian Refugees Into U.S.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.686976

"Jewish groups argue that 'turning our back on refugees would be to betray our nation’s core values."

Meanwhile Israel takes in ZERO and treats AL Nusra fighters in field hospitals and the same 10 groups staffed with Dual Citizens lobby no one.

garhkal
11-21-2015, 06:23 AM
Ten Jewish Groups Urge Congress to Allow Syrian Refugees Into U.S.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.686976

"Jewish groups argue that 'turning our back on refugees would be to betray our nation’s core values."

Meanwhile Israel takes in ZERO and treats AL Nusra fighters in field hospitals and the same 10 groups staffed with Dual Citizens lobby no one.

I want to tell all 10 of those orgs, SHUT THE FUCK UP.. Until you allow refugees in, don't tell anyone else they have to.

sandsjames
11-21-2015, 12:19 PM
Ten Jewish Groups Urge Congress to Allow Syrian Refugees Into U.S.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.686976

"Jewish groups argue that 'turning our back on refugees would be to betray our nation’s core values."

Meanwhile Israel takes in ZERO and treats AL Nusra fighters in field hospitals and the same 10 groups staffed with Dual Citizens lobby no one.


Aren't you doing the same thing? Saying that other countries should take them and we should refuse?

UncaRastus
11-21-2015, 03:04 PM
It's American Jews that are in the groups urging the USA to let them in. Not Israel.

If say, you are of Italian descent, but you are a citizen of the USA. Some groups of American citizen based Italian people are writing letters to the POTUS, to let Syrians in.

Would you then blame Italy?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

sandsjames
11-21-2015, 03:31 PM
It's American Jews that are in the groups urging the USA to let them in. Not Israel.

If say, you are of Italian descent, but you are a citizen of the USA. Some groups of American citizen based Italian people are writing letters to the POTUS, to let Syrians in.

Would you then blame Italy?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

But you're missing his point, and his agenda. American Jews are just imbedded agents of the Zionist regime, so they would obviously be trying to create security issues within our borders.

MikeKerriii
11-21-2015, 04:18 PM
botched post'

MikeKerriii
11-21-2015, 04:22 PM
Trump already said Israel will be protected.

He's not gonna let them run the country into the ground anymore and they may even have to bring some jobs back.

But, His daughter married a Jew and is raising his grandkids that way.

So you can spare us the NAZI hysteria Mike. No one's having a pogrom here.

Nazis did not just target Jews. Any one with the slightest clue knows that.

Trump just picked a different group to attack, with the same tactics and the same utter lack of morality.

Rainmaker
11-21-2015, 05:10 PM
It's American Jews that are in the groups urging the USA to let them in. Not Israel.

If say, you are of Italian descent, but you are a citizen of the USA. Some groups of American citizen based Italian people are writing letters to the POTUS, to let Syrians in.

Would you then blame Italy?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

Yes if Large numbers of Italian groups start practicing Sedition inside the borders of the United States I'll be saying the same thing.

UncaRastus
11-21-2015, 05:36 PM
But of course, if it were German Americans, it would then be all right. Got your point.

Rainmaker
11-21-2015, 07:12 PM
But of course, if it were German Americans, it would then be all right. Got your point.

Nothing wrong with Jews. But, I've noticed that there are tons of dual-Isralei citizens in our government.

Absolutely no conflict or issue of loyalty there.

Right. And by noticing certain things about reality I've commited a thoughtcrime and should be smeared by all concerned as an "Anti-Semite'.

Now, If I also happened to notice that the starting five on my local NBA team is all black, would that also make me a racist?

NO Dual Citizens of Foreign Nations should be allowed in to any position of high office. Because, It's an inherent conflict of Interest