A Political question...based on Current Events

[Correll]

Wooooo, Scary brown people.

Looking at Paris, Fear is the rational response, you fool.

Hardly. When you modify your behaviour out of fear, the terrorists have won. The safe nations of the world should take in the refugees. To do otherwise is an obscenity and goes against Christian principles of helping others. You cannot call yourself and Christian and say otherwise.

When you modify your behavior to protect yourself and your fellow citizens from danger, you are being sane and responsible.

When terrorist kill innocent people in large numbers, they win.

THere is no Christian Principle that says we have to be suicidal fools, that's a Principle of Modern Liberalism.

You don't understand. Any time anyone objects to liberal schemes that appear to be a prescription for disaster, it's because they "afraid." Being afraid of liberalism is the worse thing you can be in the eyes of a liberal turd. Of course, it's also an ironclad demonstration of rationality.

It's the old talking points.

Conservatives are "Afraid of change".

As though all change is good...

 

[asaratis]

There should be a moratorium on taking refugees and every leader in the west should tell Saudi Arabia either you start DOING something or take your oil and shove it.

If we could subdue our own environmentalist/communist faction and its influence over the DOE, we could supply ourselves with oil aplenty. As it is, we import hundreds of thousands of barrels (44gal each) EVERY DAY from various countries around the world...some of them our enemies.

Company Level Imports
Note: The data in the tables above exclude oil imports into the U.S. territories.

If we had a decent President that actually cared what happens to our own citizens instead of trying to destroy our coal and oil industries (and the thousands of jobs that go along with them), we could reach self sufficiency almost overnight.

Obama is a goddamned Marxist asshole! His 'fundamental transformation' agenda includes bringing America to its knees and equating this once great nation to that of third world countries where socialism and dictators rule.

 

[asaratis]

When you fuck with a region for over 50 years because your economy & lifestyle depends on its oil, you will eventually bump into unintended consequences - like the destabilization of the entire region, the perpetual rise of radical groups coupled with dangerous refugees flooding into other nations and spreading the instability/chaos/terror. This is why we have to think twice when removing Mossedeq (in 1959) or supporting Hussein (Reagan in the 80s) or supporting the Mujahideen (Reagan > Afghanistan). At some point your tinkering may come back to bite you.

(PSST: Maybe Washington can't fix BIG Problems without making them worse?)

Answer to the OP.

No, I don't think we should take in any refugees, but I do think that our decision to destabilize the region under Bush (as Trump has pointed out) has left us with increasingly bad options for putting the genie (civil unrest) back in the bottle.

This is why Eisenhower's Detente is better than Reagan/Bush's activism. But for his 1959 mistake with Iran, Eisenhower tried to relax hot civil tensions. He was careful with intervention. His form of anti-communism was more enlightened than Reagan's anti-communism, and more enlightened than Bush's anti-terrorism because he (Eisenhower) didn't think it was possible for Washington to control the unintended consequences that would result from radical military intervention. Eisenhower was brilliantly skeptical of Washington's ability to save the world. He didn't believe in the Liberal interventionism of FDR/Reagan/Bush 43 (forcing Democracy through top-down change. To the contrary, Eisenhower was more of a Conservative Burkean when it came to changing the world. He was skeptical of top-down solutions imposed externally by force. He thought that solutions needed to come from the organic collision of the people who actually lived in the country).

Sometimes giving Washington more money and power to fix the globe and save the world actually makes things worse.

This is why I agree with old Isolationist Republican Party, who was skeptical of Washington's ability to control the globe from the top-down by dropping bombs and installing Western-friendly monsters like the Shaw or Hussein or Mujahideen. At some point these problems come back to bite you. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences. Despite the Rightwing desire to have Washington to fix the world, sometimes giving Washington more money and power doesn't result in a utopia. Sometimes Washington makes things worse - but you can't tell the current crop of Talk Radio drones this. Their faith in Washington's ability to save the globe through military intervention is more powerful than their bullshit propaganda about not trusting Washington to do big things. (God Help Us, because they're too stupid to see this contradiction - and they vote. And the result is the current Middle East).

The only reason we 'depend' on oil from the ME is that we don't tap our own supply. The only reason we don't use our own oil is the environmentalist/communist influence on our government.

Recent increases in US oil production have occurred on PRIVATE LAND that the stupid turds in Washington DC do not control.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

CNN this morning confirmed what many of us knew. The group responsible for the Paris attack came in with the wave of refugees. Instead of western nations opening their doors, we should close our doors. The heightened chance of terrorism is exactly why several Muslim countries are not taking any refugees.

Do you think Obama will have to balls to do that?

Obama will not do what is necessary to keep America safe. Right now we have refugees from Syria landing in New Orleans. In no time a group could drive to a major city and attack us. We're screwed already and don't even know it.

"Right now we have refugees from Syria landing in New Orleans."

Not true but go back and look at the RWNJs who posted they agree with this. And I'll bet they've all sent links to their RWNK friends who have sent it to more RWNJs - all of whom believe it to be fact.

Is there anything you gullible fools won't fall for?

Dummmmmmies.

 

[DarkFury]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "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-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

You notice that list does NOT include YOUR TERRORISTS!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Knowing what you know now, do you think the USA should take in refugees from Syria? If you do, how many should we allow?

No FLIPPING WAY

 

[thereisnospoon]

CNN this morning confirmed what many of us knew. The group responsible for the Paris attack came in with the wave of refugees. Instead of western nations opening their doors, we should close our doors. The heightened chance of terrorism is exactly why several Muslim countries are not taking any refugees.

Do you think Obama will have to balls to do that?

LOL......No....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Put all the refugees to work building a modern city in an isolated area in the Middle East. It can be protected by all those strong young men now living in Europe. When Assad is dead, move them back home.

Good plan, when ISIS and the other moderate rebels take Damascus and execute Assad all the refugees can return and live happily ever after.....

Seriously?

I don't give a shit if they end up in Siberia. As long as the total number of refugees entering our country is a big fat fucking donut

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He's doing what he does best...community organizing....with no plan in mind.

Yeah, proof of that is that he has killed more than any other prez and more than any other country.

Idiot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "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-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Too much mercy... often resulted in further crimes which were fatal to innocent victims who need not have been victims if justice had been put first and mercy second.

Agatha Christie

 

[PK1]

I don't give a shit if they end up in Siberia. As long as the total number of refugees entering our country is a big fat fucking donut

---
Gee, that sounds so un-Christian, so unsympathetic to the misery of innocents.
Have you no empathy?
.

 

[asaratis]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "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-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Too much mercy... often resulted in further crimes which were fatal to innocent victims who need not have been victims if justice had been put first and mercy second.

Agatha Christie

Hollande has vowed to fight ISIS without mercy. This is what our sympathetic (and pathetic) excuse for a President needs to do. ISIS shows no mercy to anyone. Why should we have mercy on them? Why should we not already be doing ALL THAT WE CAN to kill them?

Obama said U.S. would intensify its current campaign of airstrikes and arming and training moderate forces.

Obama: Attacks on Paris are ‘terrible’ setback in ISIS fight

If we had been doing all we could already, why should we have to intensify the campaign? Why haven't we been fighting with MAXIMUM INTENSITY from the beginning?

That's a rhetorical question when one realizes that Obama is a Muslim sympathizer and a complete pussy.

 

[Sallow]

View attachment 54785

It was American Conservatives that gave us barbarity and deceit.

Yeah, because there was no Islamic terrorist before Bush Invaded Iraq . . . . . . er, no, that's not right.

Yup. There were.

They were initially funded by the Reagan administration and were mad that George HW Bush invaded Kuwait and had a base in Saudi Arabia.

Clinton tried to send covert operations to handle them after the Towers and the Cole but he was thwarted by a Congress bent on impeaching the Commander in Chief.

Bush the second was warned about the threat but completely ignored it and favored starting a new cold war with China and Russia.

After the 9/11 attacks he and the PNAC cowboys were made up his administration carried out a Conservative/Christian Theocratic/Oil Company wet dream and invaded Iraq using 9/11 as an excuse.

Any other stupid observations?

Just one. How about supporting your assertions?

What now? Do I get a cookie?

No, you get a bag of dicks. How about supporting your assertions and quit playing schoolgirl games? I'll make it easy for you since you feel the need for a smokescreen. Just support this one..
"Clinton tried to send covert operations to handle them after the Towers and the Cole but he was thwarted by a Congress bent on impeaching the Commander in Chief."

What is it with you guys and the faggot shit? Is that all you idiots think about?

Those are clips of the folks involved stating the things I put up. Clinton directly quotes out of Richard Clarke's book. Additionally? Clinton was impeached you fucking moron. Did that history pass you by? Do you remember that the congress was hell bent on impeachment WHILE we were engaged in trying to kill Bin Laden and his merry band of terrorists?

But don't believe your lying ears and eyes.

 

[Sallow]

Bet you feel the same way about the Constitution.

No, that's how liberals feel. The Constitution isn't a poem. It's the law of the land.

The Constitution supports immigration.

It does no such thing.

Sure it does.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It provides for naturalization and birth rights.

You really should pick it up and read it.

Meaning it allows the government to naturalize foreigners. That's not the same thing as "supporting" it. However, the clause that allows Congress to naturalize foreigners isn't found in the 14th Amendment. Its' found in Section 8.

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"​

Notice that it doesn't require the government to allow foreigners to become citizens. It allows Congress to do whatever it likes in that regard.

Of course it means supporting.

Not supporting would be not allowing it.

 

[TNHarley]

86% said NONE

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "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-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

typical liberal hyperbole.....

tell me.....are the Muslims actually "yearning to breathe free" in the American sense of the word......?

of course not.....they want to establish their own form of Islam to rule the world....we Americans are nothing but Infidels to them and FOOLISH enough to provide a port in the storm of the Sunni-Shia war....

 

[boilermaker55]

So, the enemy are so afraid of, are they smart? Do you have an idea that they can get around your fool-hearty concept.

CNN this morning confirmed what many of us knew. The group responsible for the Paris attack came in with the wave of refugees. Instead of western nations opening their doors, we should close our doors. The heightened chance of terrorism is exactly why several Muslim countries are not taking any refugees.

Do you think Obama will have to balls to do that?

 

[bripat9643]

No, that's how liberals feel. The Constitution isn't a poem. It's the law of the land.

The Constitution supports immigration.

It does no such thing.

Sure it does.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It provides for naturalization and birth rights.

You really should pick it up and read it.

Meaning it allows the government to naturalize foreigners. That's not the same thing as "supporting" it. However, the clause that allows Congress to naturalize foreigners isn't found in the 14th Amendment. Its' found in Section 8.

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"​

Notice that it doesn't require the government to allow foreigners to become citizens. It allows Congress to do whatever it likes in that regard.

Of course it means supporting.

Not supporting would be not allowing it.

You're playing games with words here. You're using two difference senses of the word support. On the one hand, you're using the sense that means "allows," and on the other you're implying that the Constitution approves of immigration. It does no such thing. It merely authorizes Congress to implement whatever immigration rules it likes. If that means allowing no immigration, that's perfectly acceptable to the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Wooooo, Scary brown people.

Looking at Paris, Fear is the rational response, you fool.

Hardly. When you modify your behaviour out of fear, the terrorists have won. The safe nations of the world should take in the refugees. To do otherwise is an obscenity and goes against Christian principles of helping others. You cannot call yourself and Christian and say otherwise.

When you modify your behavior to protect yourself and your fellow citizens from danger, you are being sane and responsible.

When terrorist kill innocent people in large numbers, they win.

THere is no Christian Principle that says we have to be suicidal fools, that's a Principle of Modern Liberalism.

You don't understand. Any time anyone objects to liberal schemes that appear to be a prescription for disaster, it's because they "afraid." Being afraid of liberalism is the worse thing you can be in the eyes of a liberal turd. Of course, it's also an ironclad demonstration of rationality.

It's the old talking points.

Conservatives are "Afraid of change".

As though all change is good...

Everyone should be afraid of any change liberals propose.

 

[Sallow]

The Constitution supports immigration.

It does no such thing.

Sure it does.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It provides for naturalization and birth rights.

You really should pick it up and read it.

Meaning it allows the government to naturalize foreigners. That's not the same thing as "supporting" it. However, the clause that allows Congress to naturalize foreigners isn't found in the 14th Amendment. Its' found in Section 8.

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"​

Notice that it doesn't require the government to allow foreigners to become citizens. It allows Congress to do whatever it likes in that regard.

Of course it means supporting.

Not supporting would be not allowing it.

You're playing games with words here. You're using two difference senses of the word support. On the one hand, you're using the sense that means "allows," and on the other you're implying that the Constitution approves of immigration. It does no such thing. It merely authorizes Congress to implement whatever immigration rules it likes. If that means allowing no immigration, that's perfectly acceptable to the Constitution.

Not playing games with words at all.

We are one of the only nations that automatically grants citizenship by birthright.