I am almost out of tinfoil
 

Seeing as Obama wants to admit at least 10,000 Syrian refugees before he leaves office

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...ees-/?page=all

and the lack of ability to control who illegally enters this country, is it possible the goal is to create conditions that will most likely lead to conflict within our borders resulting in martial law being deckared?
If so shouldn't a candidates stance on these issues be of foremost importance?
Say goodbye to your rights if Martial law is declared.
It seems as though Obama is making hope and change a reality since I hope it never happens and he has changed America so it's one to go. :(

Syrian refugees aren't attacking Europe...

I didn't say they were. But are you saying they are not a potential threat to this country?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The biggest threat to this country is fear and ignorance. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what I've read of the refugee process it's not likely that terrorists would choose it as a method to get into the US. It can be long, there are qualifications and you don't get to choose which country you're sent to.

That being said, anything can be a threat. We take close to 100k refugees a year from around the world and many are Muslims.

Some would make you believe it's an open door for ISIS which is really isn't.

There are a good number of Syrian pigs who have attacked their hosts. Bad idea.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The biggest threat to this country is people unwilling to look at evidence in an apolitical matter and make decisions based on feelings. THAT allows all sorts of bad things to happen.

National Security is not a default state. Civilization is not a default state. Freedom is not a default state. All of it needed to be earned, all of it needs to be maintained.

They have it where borders are more tightly integrated than our borders.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-st...ece-1447698583

https://homeland.house.gov/wp-conten...gee_Report.pdf

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu...0U523520151222

The process to enter Greece as a refugee is totally different than the US. You can't even compare with a straight face.

Fear and ignorance. Keep repeating that and it will make more and more sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

....and Hillary
Fear, Ignorance and Hillary......those are the threats...


......oh.....and Trump
Fear, Ignorance, Hillary, and Trump.....those are the threats..


Oh Crap, forgot about Cruz..
Fear, Ignorance, Hillary, Trump and Cruz....those are the threats


Whoops.....Bernie too....
Fear, Ignorance, Hillary, Trump, Cruz and Bernie......those are the threats
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point is that countries which in many ways have stricter border controls than we do have had some come in to Europe. We are not going to be able to cherry pick which ones we take in.

I am not against taking in refugees but I think the hoops need to be pretty tight

Not from Syria , but haven't we had two attacks already in this country from terrorist that have been through that process ? So to say it can't happen would be a lie because it has happened .
I believe both in France and in Brussels, Syrian refugees were at least reported to be involved .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not aware of any attacks in this country by people who have been through the same process as what Syrian refugees would go through.

Pretty sure all the known Paris attackers were of EU citizenship, same goes for Brussles.

What is with all this logic ? Can't you see you are contradicting the GOP fear mongering counterpoints?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Originally Posted by spence View Post
I'm not aware of any attacks in this country by people who have been through the same process as what Syrian refugees would go through."


logic?...this isn't even an intelligible statement...:wave:

It is lawyer-parse. Spence, like Hilary, significantly parses words to guide the conversation away from the buried bones.

No it's just specific.

wow..."clarity" and "specific"...two words I'd never associate with you :doh:

Haha - you strategically parse your messaging as well as anyone I have seen since Baghdad Bob.

Do they have no say in what country they get sent to? That's good to know.

"Some would make you believe it's an open door for ISIS "

I don't think anyone who matters, believes it's a wide-open door. But it doesn't have to be a wide open door. They only need a crack. In 2001, was it 12 or so terrorists that killed 3,000 of us, and brought the country to its knees?

We need to concede the reality that it's not a wide open door. We also need to concede that it only takes a small number of these guys, to do unfathomable damage.

I asked you in another thread this question...if a gave your kids a bowl with 100 gummy bears, and I told you that 1 was poisoned and would kill whoever eats it. How many would you, Spence, let your kids eat before you take the bowl away?

I will concede that people aren't the moral equivalent of gummy bears. But the analogy has some validity to it. Estimates are that 1% - 2% of Muslims are radicalized. That's a small percentage, but it's millions of Muslims.

"The biggest threat to this country is people unwilling to look at evidence in an apolitical matter and make decisions based on feelings. THAT allows all sorts of bad things to happen."

Correct. Failing to recognize the reality of what's happening, is a far bigger threat than "fear".

But you have no problem when Bernie uses "fear" (beware the GOP, they just want to enable the rich to steal you future away from you), or when he uses "ignorance" (vote for me, and you'll have free college, healthcare, and a unicorn in your driveway).

It is the "citizens," such as the Fort Hood killer and others like the Tsarnaevs and the Farooks, which are the most dangerous "radicals." It is the radicalization of citizens or "home grown" Muslims who pose the greatest threat. It is the inability of devout Muslims to be able to assimilate into Western culture which make them especially susceptible to the misnomer of "radicalization." Islam is by definition a radical departure from Western civilization. It is very difficult for an open, tolerant, society to suppress the desire of those in large, isolated, communities whose deepest sentiments run counter to that society. Islamic States are successful at suppressing non-Islamic sentiments because those countries are not open and tolerant.

If the argument is that we become just as intolerant as Islamic States if we do not "tolerate" entrenchment of fundamentalist Islamic ideology, that would be saying that we won't tolerate intolerance. Which, I assume, is the limit of toleration. Beyond that limit is suicidal toleration.

That is the peculiar problem with Islamic immigration compared to ethnic, or most other religious immigrants. Others can keep their different identities and embrace American social and political culture instead of having a fundamental antipathy toward it. In our tolerant way, we assume that Muslims who wish to live here have reformed their religion, or will. Reforming Islam to the point that it is compatible with Western values is fundamentally to destroy it, and that makes our assumption difficult. Not impossible. Certainly, it is possible to gut Islam of its very nature, keeping some of the "nice" tenets, and maintain the name. But that is a transition in its very early stages. And before such a reformation is complete, there will be a great deal of "radicaliztion." And a lot of terrorism.

Call us bigots if that makes you feel superior or righteous, but many of us would rather wait for the reformation to grow serious world wide roots before we invite millions of Muslims into our midst.

They will, and it does. More importantly, hurling those labels, allows liberals to dodge responding to what you are actually saying...because they can't respond to what you are actually saying.

Is he wrong ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Until things change all refugees coming to this country should sign a legal document/statement giving up their right to privacy.

Ummm, yes, he is completely and totally and demonstrably wrong.

Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. So if a rich guy gets richer, that does absolutely nohting to reduce anybody else's ability to get rich. I agree that a huge income gap is "unfair". But it's insane to suggest the wealthy people are "causing" the income gap. There are some criminals out there of course, but fo rth emost part, one person's wealth doesn't cause anyone else's poverty. If wealthy [people all burned 90% of their money, that eliminates the wealth gap. But does it help anybody? No one is better off, had those wealthy people, not done what they did to get wealthier.

As to 'free college'...let me ask this first...if Bernie is the first person to figure out how to pull this off, why didn't he propose it during the 85 years he was in Congress?

He's more than wrong. He is crazy to believe what he believes.

In many cases the wealthy are getting wealthier because they can and can not give a raise to those below them. Hmm. Give myself a raise or the minions... I'll vote for me. Congress does it all the time ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"In many cases the wealthy are getting wealthier because they can and can not give a raise to those below them"

Nice accusation. Any facts to back that up? If that's true, you may have a point. But it's not true, because most peopple would not continue to stay and work for a company that makes money but doesn't give out raises.

My experience doesn't speak for everyone, obviously my experience is only my own. But I have worked at Aetna, Travelers, and The Hartford. There were 2 years I didn't get a raise, and both years, the company's results were horrible and it was fair that I didn't get a raise.

What successful company refuses to give raises, even though the company makes money? Please support this statement.

"Congress does it all the time "

Congress doens't work like the private sector, i fthey did, we'd all be a LOT better off.

Much of current liberalism is based on the notion that the rich have the ability to prevent everyone else from being rich. It's not even close to being true.

Nice April Fools joke!