Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The U.S. Should Accept Syrian Refugees

Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:44:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:47:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If only Americans knew how much their country did harm there, both by doing the stuff it did to Iraq and destabilize the region, but also support stupid rebels against a government that held the strings of the society together, they'd probably, if they had any sense of what is good, be willing to help the refugees out.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 2:56:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I completely agree, I don't understand all the paranoia against these refugees. It's highly unlikely they are going to be harmful, strict background checks can help weed out the radical Islamists.
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 3:19:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.


Do you ever wonder why it is that the "refugee crisis" didn't start until just last year, even though the Syrian civil war has been raging for nearly 5 years? The fact is most of these "refugees" are just young, male economic migrants looking to take advantage of Europe.
The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.


The Syrian refugee link is not bogus. So far at least 6 other migrants have been found with the same copies of the passport used by Ahmad Almohammad. Human trafficking rings will forge a fake Syrian passport for as little as 165 Euro in Iraq. ISIS even claimed they were sending militants among the refugees. Now we know better than to call their bluff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

All people have the right to leave their country, but there is no right to inhabit the nicest places in other countries. Refugees by definition are not citizens, and therefore have no right to inhabit any country without their consent.
When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee the right of outsiders to enter our country without our permission.
Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different?


Do you even know what "homegrown terrorism" means?
(http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)


Syrian refugees committed the atrocity in Paris. I also find this absurd because it was only about 4 months ago that a refugee in my community, Fazliddin Kurbanov, was convicted on 3 charges of terror.
Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

The story is just globalist media rhetoric. The boy's father was a human trafficker and it was his fault the boat sunk in the first place.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 4:38:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 3:19:59 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.


Do you ever wonder why it is that the "refugee crisis" didn't start until just last year, even though the Syrian civil war has been raging for nearly 5 years? The fact is most of these "refugees" are just young, male economic migrants looking to take advantage of Europe.

Your facts are wrong. It started in 2011. Just because the news started talking about it a year ago doesn't mean it wasn't an issue before.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.


The Syrian refugee link is not bogus. So far at least 6 other migrants have been found with the same copies of the passport used by Ahmad Almohammad. Human trafficking rings will forge a fake Syrian passport for as little as 165 Euro in Iraq. ISIS even claimed they were sending militants among the refugees. Now we know better than to call their bluff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Our refugee process is different. The UN first approves the migrants and then we do a background check that lasts for years and they have the BOP to prove they are not terrorists.


All people have the right to leave their country, but there is no right to inhabit the nicest places in other countries. Refugees by definition are not citizens, and therefore have no right to inhabit any country without their consent.

From a rights perspective, I agree with this. But I am a softie and would let them in because I am too nice of a person

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee the right of outsiders to enter our country without our permission.

Going back to the constitution, the founders didn't like German immigrants because they would corrode Anglo Saxon values. That prediction didn't really bore out, but just a random thought I had. So yes, you're right.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different?


Do you even know what "homegrown terrorism" means?

gg

(http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)


Syrian refugees committed the atrocity in Paris. I also find this absurd because it was only about 4 months ago that a refugee in my community, Fazliddin Kurbanov, was convicted on 3 charges of terror.

Do you even know what a refugee is?

They were given derivative asylum status and did NOT come in through the refugee program (http://www.bloomberg.com...).

(preempt) "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE YOU TEENAGE, HIGH SCHOOL NERD, KNOW NOTHING"

Yes there is m8 http://www.uscis.gov...

And, you know, that's 2/1.8 MILLION people who came in using asylum... http://www.migrationpolicy.org... ... 1.8 million people lifted out of poverty and their children, for generations, will flourish compared to their home countries, outweighs one tragic terrorist attack.

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

The story is just globalist media rhetoric. The boy's father was a human trafficker and it was his fault the boat sunk in the first place.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au...

That is a cool factoid actually
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 12:35:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

No, you needn't.You shouldn't try to appeal to the emotions of others' by referring to the case of a four year Syrian boy drowning, it's cheap and only serves to discredit honest and open discussion of the situation. Looking at the case in *context*, the boys father was directly involved in human trafficking and chose to risk his family's lives knowing full well what the repercussions could be.

In fact, some Syrians are paying up to "4000 euros to cross from Turkey to Greece--thus showing that they're not entirely 'refugees'. Human trafficking is one of the main issues in this migrant crisis and it should be addressed instead of being conveniently ignored.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 4:30:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

I think we should make Syria a safer place for Syrians so Syrians can stay and not be forced to flee their own country. Muslims will not be safe in America where there are more guns than people. Americans travelled across the globe to hunt down Islamists. Imagine what they will do to them if they find them in their own backyard. After the Paris massacre the future of Muslims are unpredictable in western countries.
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2015 8:51:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 4:38:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:: Your facts are wrong. It started in 2011. Just because the news started talking about it a year ago doesn't mean it wasn't an issue before.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not saying refugees haven't been fleeing since 2011. The Wikipedia article states that millions of refugees were going to neighboring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. That makes sense. But why is it all of the sudden the responsibility of Europe and the West to absorb all these migrants? Just because they demand to live in the nicest countries with the most welfare? The truth is most of these people today aren't even refugees, they're economic migrants.

Our refugee process is different. The UN first approves the migrants and then we do a background check that lasts for years and they have the BOP to prove they are not terrorists.
Even if there was a reliable betting process with an adequate database of information to reference, that process only tells you of the migrants past, not the future. How many will become terrorists in the future? And what about their children? We don't know. Muslim immigration to the West needs to be stopped.

All people have the right to leave their country, but there is no right to inhabit the nicest places in other countries. Refugees by definition are not citizens, and therefore have no right to inhabit any country without their consent.

From a rights perspective, I agree with this. But I am a softie and would let them in because I am too nice of a person

Then you are more concerned of the safety and welfare of invaders than your own neighbors and fellow citizens. This is called "cuckservativism".
Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee the right of outsiders to enter our country without our permission.

Going back to the constitution, the founders didn't like German immigrants because they would corrode Anglo Saxon values. That prediction didn't really bore out, but just a random thought I had. So yes, you're right.

Actually the American public school system probably wouldn't exist were it not for the heavy German influence, hence the term "kindergarten".
Do you even know what a refugee is?

They were given derivative asylum status and did NOT come in through the refugee program (http://www.bloomberg.com...).

What? The Boston Bombers have nothing to do with my anecdote. Kurbanov came to the United States from Uzbekistan as a refugee after his parents converted to Christianity. He was arrested 2 years ago in an apartment just down the road from where I lived at the time.

(preempt) "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE YOU TEENAGE, HIGH SCHOOL NERD, KNOW NOTHING"

Yes there is m8 http://www.uscis.gov...

And, you know, that's 2/1.8 MILLION people who came in using asylum... http://www.migrationpolicy.org... ... 1.8 million people lifted out of poverty and their children, for generations, will flourish compared to their home countries, outweighs one tragic terrorist attack.

You are wrong on two accounts. It is morally reprehensible to say the needs of non-citizens outweigh the needs of the citizens. A just Government's obligation is to the people from which it is subservient. Also, there will be widespread bloodshed as a result of these policies. Hollande has announced that they are now at war with 'radical Islam'. Mass immigration is war.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:15:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:44:20 AM, 16kadams wrote:
I agree.

I'm glad I finally found someone with similar beliefs who agrees with me on this issue :)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:19:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 4:30:59 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

I think we should make Syria a safer place for Syrians so Syrians can stay and not be forced to flee their own country. Muslims will not be safe in America where there are more guns than people. Americans travelled across the globe to hunt down Islamists. Imagine what they will do to them if they find them in their own backyard. After the Paris massacre the future of Muslims are unpredictable in western countries.

MuslimX00;Islamist

Muslims are a religious group, Islamism is a political ideology.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 3:54:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 3:19:53 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 11/18/2015 4:30:59 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

I think we should make Syria a safer place for Syrians so Syrians can stay and not be forced to flee their own country. Muslims will not be safe in America where there are more guns than people. Americans travelled across the globe to hunt down Islamists. Imagine what they will do to them if they find them in their own backyard. After the Paris massacre the future of Muslims are unpredictable in western countries.

MuslimX00;Islamist

Muslims are a religious group, Islamism is a political ideology.

Islamism is an extremely radical ultra-conservative political ideology that goes against basic civil liberties... Why do you identify as one?
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:22:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 3:54:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:19:53 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 11/18/2015 4:30:59 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

I think we should make Syria a safer place for Syrians so Syrians can stay and not be forced to flee their own country. Muslims will not be safe in America where there are more guns than people. Americans travelled across the globe to hunt down Islamists. Imagine what they will do to them if they find them in their own backyard. After the Paris massacre the future of Muslims are unpredictable in western countries.

MuslimX00;Islamist

Muslims are a religious group, Islamism is a political ideology.

Islamism is an extremely radical ultra-conservative political ideology that goes against basic civil liberties... Why do you identify as one?

There is a difference between Islamism and radical Islamism. And this is not a No True Scotsman. They are distinct ideologies. In fact , most Muslims including Islamists, arent in favour of Wahabism or Salafis
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 5:37:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is interesting here is that ISIS is doing to the people of Syria what Hamas did, and has done to the Palestinian people for decades now: put them between the West and their terrorist group.

More interesting is the fact that if the United States and United Kingdom had upheld its military commitments, ISIS would not exist.

Now, they need to be purged from this earth.

And the United States needs to end its relationship with Saudi Arabia... but we all knew this.
Tsar of DDO
withywindle
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 6:33:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 5:37:55 AM, YYW wrote:
What is interesting here is that ISIS is doing to the people of Syria what Hamas did, and has done to the Palestinian people for decades now: put them between the West and their terrorist group.

More interesting is the fact that if the United States and United Kingdom had upheld its military commitments, ISIS would not exist.

One could argue the opposite, that further occupation would serve only to anger more Iraqi youth as they grew up, making them susceptible to the radical islamist rhetoric that leads to radicalization. There comes a point at which the war on terror becomes more ideological than physical; the more we bomb and occupy, the more fodder we give radicals to use as recruitment propaganda. We know from Vietnam that we cannot win a war in which the average citizen decides to take up arms. Three-step logic, not one-step, is the solution.


Now, they need to be purged from this earth.

And the United States needs to end its relationship with Saudi Arabia... but we all knew this.

While this idea is definitely the overtly moral option considering that nation's human rights record, we are talking about a world of political reality in which ending that relationship would be an economic, political, and security misstep felt for decades to come.
withywindle
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 6:40:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 8:51:08 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 11/18/2015 4:38:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:: Your facts are wrong. It started in 2011. Just because the news started talking about it a year ago doesn't mean it wasn't an issue before.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not saying refugees haven't been fleeing since 2011. The Wikipedia article states that millions of refugees were going to neighboring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. That makes sense. But why is it all of the sudden the responsibility of Europe and the West to absorb all these migrants? Just because they demand to live in the nicest countries with the most welfare? The truth is most of these people today aren't even refugees, they're economic migrants.

Can you provide anything to support your argument? Frankly, we are best equipped to take refugees. In those nations that you mentioned, the refugees are overburdening already questionable economies and have been relegated to living in camps with subpar medical, nutritional, and sanitation resources.


Our refugee process is different. The UN first approves the migrants and then we do a background check that lasts for years and they have the BOP to prove they are not terrorists.
Even if there was a reliable betting process with an adequate database of information to reference, that process only tells you of the migrants past, not the future. How many will become terrorists in the future? And what about their children? We don't know. Muslim immigration to the West needs to be stopped.

All people have the right to leave their country, but there is no right to inhabit the nicest places in other countries. Refugees by definition are not citizens, and therefore have no right to inhabit any country without their consent.

From a rights perspective, I agree with this. But I am a softie and would let them in because I am too nice of a person

Then you are more concerned of the safety and welfare of invaders than your own neighbors and fellow citizens. This is called "cuckservativism".

It's a fantastical stretch of logic to jump from "refugee" to "invader". How'd you do that?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee the right of outsiders to enter our country without our permission.

Going back to the constitution, the founders didn't like German immigrants because they would corrode Anglo Saxon values. That prediction didn't really bore out, but just a random thought I had. So yes, you're right.

Actually the American public school system probably wouldn't exist were it not for the heavy German influence, hence the term "kindergarten".

You reinforced his point. The founders were opposed to German immigration, and yet that very thing served to bolster and grow our nation's economy.
Do you even know what a refugee is?

They were given derivative asylum status and did NOT come in through the refugee program (http://www.bloomberg.com...).

What? The Boston Bombers have nothing to do with my anecdote. Kurbanov came to the United States from Uzbekistan as a refugee after his parents converted to Christianity. He was arrested 2 years ago in an apartment just down the road from where I lived at the time.

(preempt) "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE YOU TEENAGE, HIGH SCHOOL NERD, KNOW NOTHING"

Yes there is m8 http://www.uscis.gov...

And, you know, that's 2/1.8 MILLION people who came in using asylum... http://www.migrationpolicy.org... ... 1.8 million people lifted out of poverty and their children, for generations, will flourish compared to their home countries, outweighs one tragic terrorist attack.

You are wrong on two accounts. It is morally reprehensible to say the needs of non-citizens outweigh the needs of the citizens.

That is a radical assertion that you need argumentation to support. If you want to invoke morality, you have to be able to demonstrate it.

A just Government's obligation is to the people from which it is subservient. Also, there will be widespread bloodshed as a result of these policies.

Another wild and radical, unsupported assertion. Immigration to the first world has existed just as long as the nations in question have, and never has it resulted in "widespread bloodshed".

Hollande has announced that they are now at war with 'radical Islam'. Mass immigration is war.

According to who?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 1:33:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


The French wrote that on a statue they donated. It isn't really an American phrase.

In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

I've yet to see a single thing that shows how accepting refugees, helps America in any way. I see no purpose for accepting them.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 2:28:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 3:19:53 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 11/18/2015 4:30:59 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

I think we should make Syria a safer place for Syrians so Syrians can stay and not be forced to flee their own country. Muslims will not be safe in America where there are more guns than people. Americans travelled across the globe to hunt down Islamists. Imagine what they will do to them if they find them in their own backyard. After the Paris massacre the future of Muslims are unpredictable in western countries.

MuslimX00;Islamist

Muslims are a religious group, Islamism is a political ideology.

Muslims are a religious group and Islam is their political ideology. 164 jihad verses in the Quran and death to the infidels.

al-Taqiyya:
deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one"s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.

Sharia law Arabic: شريعة) is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islam.

Muslims are offered a complete political system with laws (Sharia) and political objectives (world domination, expansionism) and means to an end (al-Taqiyya).

Unfortunately the majority of Muslims are illiterate (800 million out of 1.4 billion Muslims). only a few can read Arabic the language the Quran is written in which is why the majority of Muslims cannot and have not read their scriptures and blindly follow a political ideology conceive in the mind of an illiterate Arab whom they blindly follow as their prophet.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 9:42:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 2:28:57 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:19:53 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 11/18/2015 4:30:59 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

I think we should make Syria a safer place for Syrians so Syrians can stay and not be forced to flee their own country. Muslims will not be safe in America where there are more guns than people. Americans travelled across the globe to hunt down Islamists. Imagine what they will do to them if they find them in their own backyard. After the Paris massacre the future of Muslims are unpredictable in western countries.

MuslimX00;Islamist

Muslims are a religious group, Islamism is a political ideology.

Muslims are a religious group and Islam is their political ideology. 164 jihad verses in the Quran and death to the infidels.

al-Taqiyya:
deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one"s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.

Sharia law Arabic: شريعة) is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islam.


Muslims are offered a complete political system with laws (Sharia) and political objectives (world domination, expansionism) and means to an end (al-Taqiyya).

Unfortunately the majority of Muslims are illiterate (800 million out of 1.4 billion Muslims). only a few can read Arabic the language the Quran is written in which is why the majority of Muslims cannot and have not read their scriptures and blindly follow a political ideology conceive in the mind of an illiterate Arab whom they blindly follow as their prophet.

Taqqiya is only used when one's life is in danger. Like in the Spanish Inquisition, where people whom openly practiced Islam were severely persecuted.

Also, even if that literacy statistic was true, illiteracy is a larger result of poverty than it is a result of religion.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:14:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 9:42:08 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 11/19/2015 2:28:57 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/19/2015 3:19:53 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 11/18/2015 4:30:59 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

I think we should make Syria a safer place for Syrians so Syrians can stay and not be forced to flee their own country. Muslims will not be safe in America where there are more guns than people. Americans travelled across the globe to hunt down Islamists. Imagine what they will do to them if they find them in their own backyard. After the Paris massacre the future of Muslims are unpredictable in western countries.

MuslimX00;Islamist

Muslims are a religious group, Islamism is a political ideology.

Muslims are a religious group and Islam is their political ideology. 164 jihad verses in the Quran and death to the infidels.

al-Taqiyya:
deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one"s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.

Sharia law Arabic: شريعة) is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islam.


Muslims are offered a complete political system with laws (Sharia) and political objectives (world domination, expansionism) and means to an end (al-Taqiyya).

Unfortunately the majority of Muslims are illiterate (800 million out of 1.4 billion Muslims). only a few can read Arabic the language the Quran is written in which is why the majority of Muslims cannot and have not read their scriptures and blindly follow a political ideology conceive in the mind of an illiterate Arab whom they blindly follow as their prophet.

Taqqiya is only used when one's life is in danger. Like in the Spanish Inquisition, where people whom openly practiced Islam were severely persecuted.

Also, even if that literacy statistic was true, illiteracy is a larger result of poverty than it is a result of religion.

Muslim men do not believe their women need an education to do the things expected of them to please their men. That is why child marriages are encouraged so that education does not get in-between the couple to become a source of contention.
In the event the man is illiterate....he just takes on an even younger child bride to compensate for his ignorance. The illiterate prophet Mohammad took Aisha when she was only 6 years old. it was later proven she was a perfect match and became the guiding principle behind Muslim child marriages
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 11:04:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 6:40:52 AM, withywindle wrote:
I'm not saying refugees haven't been fleeing since 2011. The Wikipedia article states that millions of refugees were going to neighboring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. That makes sense. But why is it all of the sudden the responsibility of Europe and the West to absorb all these migrants? Just because they demand to live in the nicest countries with the most welfare? The truth is most of these people today aren't even refugees, they're economic migrants.

Can you provide anything to support your argument? Frankly, we are best equipped to take refugees. In those nations that you mentioned, the refugees are overburdening already questionable economies and have been relegated to living in camps with subpar medical, nutritional, and sanitation resources.

Only 1 in 5 of these "refugees" seeking asylum are even from Syrian. The ones fleeing violence have fled to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

About 40% of them are migrants from the western Balkans.
http://m.spiegel.de...

Why is it that you think absorbing thousands of migrants is not the only solution? The American economy is not a welfare program for the rest of the world, and having your country blown up by your own countrymen does not give you some unassailable claim to live in the nicest countries on other continents.
Then you are more concerned of the safety and welfare of invaders than your own neighbors and fellow citizens. This is called "cuckservativism".
It's a fantastical stretch of logic to jump from "refugee" to "invader". How'd you do that?

Have you not been paying attention? Refugees, migrants, asylum seekers, whatever you want to call them -- They are not welcome in Europe. Serbia, Hungary, and Denmark have already closed their borders. Poland has seen demonstrations with tens of thousands of people protesting the refugees and declaring it an invasion. People have been burning down buildings meant for refugees. They are invaders in both definition and practice.
Actually the American public school system probably wouldn't exist were it not for the heavy German influence, hence the term "kindergarten".

You reinforced his point. The founders were opposed to German immigration, and yet that very thing served to bolster and grow our nation's economy.

This doesn't reinforce his point at all. German immigration, for better or worse, had a clear and distinct influence on our society. Public education does not bolster and grow our economy in any way that private education couldn't have. Even if German culture did bring a beneficial contribution, that of course does not mean all, or any, mass immigration is beneficial.
You are wrong on two accounts. It is morally reprehensible to say the needs of non-citizens outweigh the needs of the citizens.

That is a radical assertion that you need argumentation to support. If you want to invoke morality, you have to be able to demonstrate it.

There is nothing radical about common sense. We inherited our country from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren. We can't just give it away to strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves. And no, I don't need any additional argumentation to support this -- OP invoked morality by claiming it was our obligation without substantiating said morality, so I can just as well do likewise in response.
A just Government's obligation is to the people from which it is subservient. Also, there will be widespread bloodshed as a result of these policies.
Another wild and radical, unsupported assertion. Immigration to the first world has existed just as long as the nations in question have, and never has it resulted in "widespread bloodshed".

Multi-ethnic empires do not last. They always collapse into divisions along racial and cultural lines, usually after periods of war and even genocide. If you have trouble understanding this, just ask yourself: how did all these ethnically homogenous states throughout history keep magically coming into being?

Hollande has announced that they are now at war with 'radical Islam'. Mass immigration is war.

According to who

My mistake, it was the French PM Manuel Valls who said it, not Hollande.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 5:43:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 11:04:21 PM, 1Percenter wrote:

I tried to get some of your points into a single post.

This doesn't reinforce his point at all. German immigration, for better or worse, had a clear and distinct influence on our society. Public education does not bolster and grow our economy in any way that private education couldn't have. Even if German culture did bring a beneficial contribution, that of course does not mean all, or any, mass immigration is beneficial.

Accepting *maybe* 60,000 refugees isn't "mass immigration". Last year we gave out almost 1 million Green Cards (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...), and this high-end estimate of refugees is about 6% of this. So it is not mass immigration.

There is nothing radical about common sense. We inherited our country from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren. We can't just give it away to strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves. And no, I don't need any additional argumentation to support this -- OP invoked morality by claiming it was our obligation without substantiating said morality, so I can just as well do likewise in response.

We aren't "giving our country away" by giving 60,000 refugees asylum. That is such a tiny drop in the bucket.

Furthermore, our grandparents claimed to have made the world and America a better place. They defeated Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, America continued to develop economically and socially, and now America has the largest economy and the most powerful military in the world's history (although we have plenty of problems I'm setting aside...).

Shouldn't we give a positive example to our children, that we believed in freedom from oppression, individual liberty, and compassion for all peoples, regardless of their background? We can tamp down the number of refugees out of practical reasons (assimilating them takes time and resources), but we must play a part if we want to be an exceptional country that helps fight for the defenseless.

Multi-ethnic empires do not last. They always collapse into divisions along racial and cultural lines, usually after periods of war and even genocide. If you have trouble understanding this, just ask yourself: how did all these ethnically homogenous states throughout history keep magically coming into being?

That logic is just inaccurate... would we have to kick out black people and ship them to Africa? Would we have to say "only white people can stay here", and then say only English and Germans are white, so French and other Europeans don't count? America prides itself with our diversity, whatever challenges it may bring.

Muslim immigration to the West needs to be stopped.

Seriously... it's one thing saying Arabs who are sympathetic to jihadists and are radical Salafists should be kept out. It's another thing extending this characterization to the vast majority of Muslims who disagree with this vision just as much as Christians and Jews.

Do you even know what "homegrown terrorism" means?

I was applying the term liberally, to include terrorist acts committed by people who were in America, sorry for the confusion.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 5:46:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 4:30:59 PM, Harikrish wrote:

I think we should make Syria a safer place for Syrians so Syrians can stay and not be forced to flee their own country. Muslims will not be safe in America where there are more guns than people. Americans travelled across the globe to hunt down Islamists. Imagine what they will do to them if they find them in their own backyard. After the Paris massacre the future of Muslims are unpredictable in western countries.

That is the ideal scenario, but all the options on the table aren't exactly pretty. Making Syria into a state might be possible, but it didn't work in Iraq, and trying again in Syria would require a tremendous investment in terms of American blood and treasure. Doing nothing isn't acceptable in my opinion. And taking in refugees will require us to extend resources to assimilate them.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 5:47:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 5:37:55 AM, YYW wrote:

And the United States needs to end its relationship with Saudi Arabia... but we all knew this.

How do we do this, in your opinion? And it's a legitimate question, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.

And with regards to the role the Saudis play in providing the world and Western economies with vast quantities of petroleum, do we have the leverage to do this?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 5:47:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 4:38:27 AM, 16kadams wrote:

All people have the right to leave their country, but there is no right to inhabit the nicest places in other countries. Refugees by definition are not citizens, and therefore have no right to inhabit any country without their consent.

: From a rights perspective, I agree with this. But I am a softie and would let them in because I am too nice of a person

Haha burn.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ConnorSween16
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 2:45:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/18/2015 2:44:00 AM, Contra wrote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."


In Syria, a civil war that broke out over 4 years ago has produced a large pool of refugees, people who are in need of a better life. These are people who are suffering from oppression (from Bashar al-Assad or ISIS usually). They lack health care, education, and other basic human needs in many cases.

The United States should live up to its creed and lend a helping hand. We already have a background check system in place that lasts about 18 months (http://m.state.gov...). The person who committed the atrocity was Belgian (http://www.nytimes.com...); thus the Syrian refugee link is bogus... he was a Belgian national. Finally, accepting refugees is an international obligation that the United States has.

When it comes to people who say "those who support the refugee program should be implicated" -- the assertion is false (according to evidence thus far). When it comes to people like Ted Cruz who say we should only accept Christians it is bigotry and unconstitutional.

Finally, we accepted over 12,000 Iraqi refugees last year, and they haven't caused any homegrown terrorism problems -- why is Syria any different? (http://www.migrationpolicy.org...) (http://www.vox.com...)

Need I remind people of the four year old who drowned trying to leave the hell in his home country?

Yeah, the crisis is horrible. But is it really our problem? We have families, homes, a life of our own to protect. Do you really want your tax dollars going towards random people, when it could be going towards homeless Vets? I see where you're coming from, but its not realistic. I saw a quote and it made sense- "If you have 10 m&ms and 1 or 2 are poisonous, do you still eat them?". I'm not saying all Syrians are terrorists, but at the same time, is it worth the risk? I am pretty sure the Boston Bombers were refugees from Syria, so even though the majority are probably great people, we shouldn't have to save the world.
ConnorSween16
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 3:53:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 5:46:01 AM, Contra wrote:
At 11/18/2015 4:30:59 PM, Harikrish wrote:

I think we should make Syria a safer place for Syrians so Syrians can stay and not be forced to flee their own country. Muslims will not be safe in America where there are more guns than people. Americans travelled across the globe to hunt down Islamists. Imagine what they will do to them if they find them in their own backyard. After the Paris massacre the future of Muslims are unpredictable in western countries.

That is the ideal scenario, but all the options on the table aren't exactly pretty. Making Syria into a state might be possible, but it didn't work in Iraq, and trying again in Syria would require a tremendous investment in terms of American blood and treasure. Doing nothing isn't acceptable in my opinion. And taking in refugees will require us to extend resources to assimilate them.

It is terrible to see little children and families displaced. But unless they are willing to renounce their faith in Islam which is the cause of their exodus from their homeland, they will never really understand how destructive their religion is.
At some future date they might even turn against the same open society that welcomed them when they discover how incompatible western values are with their own prophets teachings.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 4:30:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 5:47:14 AM, Contra wrote:
At 11/19/2015 5:37:55 AM, YYW wrote:

And the United States needs to end its relationship with Saudi Arabia... but we all knew this.

How do we do this, in your opinion? And it's a legitimate question, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.

That's an excellent question, and I wish I had an easy answer. One of the things the Obama administration is encouraging (and which I totally support) is domestic drilling. The basic idea is that to the extent that we produce domestically, we do not have to buy oil from the fvcking Saudis.

I'd also rather buy oil from the Iranians than from the Saudis. No matter how bad the Iranians are, they are not worse the saudis, but I'd still rather just produce it domestically.

And with regards to the role the Saudis play in providing the world and Western economies with vast quantities of petroleum, do we have the leverage to do this?

One of the things that the Republican party does not accept (because they are willfully blind) is the national security interest in developing alternative energy. I know I just said I support domestic drilling, and I do, but that's only going to get us so far.

We need to be producing alternative energy at a much higher rate, and I think bio-diesel and nuclear energy are the most reasonable ways to go.

We need more nuclear power plants in the United States. If I was elected president (not that I am ever considering running), that would be among my highest priorities.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 4:36:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 4:30:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/20/2015 5:47:14 AM, Contra wrote:
At 11/19/2015 5:37:55 AM, YYW wrote:

And the United States needs to end its relationship with Saudi Arabia... but we all knew this.

How do we do this, in your opinion? And it's a legitimate question, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.


That's an excellent question, and I wish I had an easy answer. One of the things the Obama administration is encouraging (and which I totally support) is domestic drilling. The basic idea is that to the extent that we produce domestically, we do not have to buy oil from the fvcking Saudis.

I'd also rather buy oil from the Iranians than from the Saudis. No matter how bad the Iranians are, they are not worse the saudis, but I'd still rather just produce it domestically.

And with regards to the role the Saudis play in providing the world and Western economies with vast quantities of petroleum, do we have the leverage to do this?

One of the things that the Republican party does not accept (because they are willfully blind) is the national security interest in developing alternative energy. I know I just said I support domestic drilling, and I do, but that's only going to get us so far.

We need to be producing alternative energy at a much higher rate, and I think bio-diesel and nuclear energy are the most reasonable ways to go.

We need more nuclear power plants in the United States. If I was elected president (not that I am ever considering running), that would be among my highest priorities.

I agree. I don't get why conservatives are hell bent on being so reliant on oil. Alt plus nuclear relieves all pressures to look elsewhere.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 4:41:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 4:36:05 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/20/2015 4:30:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/20/2015 5:47:14 AM, Contra wrote:
At 11/19/2015 5:37:55 AM, YYW wrote:

And the United States needs to end its relationship with Saudi Arabia... but we all knew this.

How do we do this, in your opinion? And it's a legitimate question, I'm just interested in your viewpoint.


That's an excellent question, and I wish I had an easy answer. One of the things the Obama administration is encouraging (and which I totally support) is domestic drilling. The basic idea is that to the extent that we produce domestically, we do not have to buy oil from the fvcking Saudis.

I'd also rather buy oil from the Iranians than from the Saudis. No matter how bad the Iranians are, they are not worse the saudis, but I'd still rather just produce it domestically.

And with regards to the role the Saudis play in providing the world and Western economies with vast quantities of petroleum, do we have the leverage to do this?

One of the things that the Republican party does not accept (because they are willfully blind) is the national security interest in developing alternative energy. I know I just said I support domestic drilling, and I do, but that's only going to get us so far.

We need to be producing alternative energy at a much higher rate, and I think bio-diesel and nuclear energy are the most reasonable ways to go.

We need more nuclear power plants in the United States. If I was elected president (not that I am ever considering running), that would be among my highest priorities.

I agree. I don't get why conservatives are hell bent on being so reliant on oil. Alt plus nuclear relieves all pressures to look elsewhere.

Actually there are a lot of conservatives that do support alternative energy. I guess I should have been more precise above, and limited by condemnation of "republicans" to "only those Republicans who are financially beholden to oil companies" which would have been more accurate.

I mean, the answer for why most of those to whom I referred in this post are hostile to alternative energy is because the oil companies they suffer from what you might call a "conflict of interest."
Tsar of DDO