What Exactly Is "Hysterical Fear" After Muslim Terrorist Attacks in Paris and Mali?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Always remember, in leftwing lalaland, reality is hysteria and hysteria is reality.

AKA.... they're all nuts.

 

[daws101]

Now that Muslim terrorists have killed 27 more people, this time in Mali, just days after over 100 people were killed in Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, one wonders how liberals will define "hysterical fear" as they seek to smear Americans who support perfectly sane, reasonable precautions to protect us against Paris-style and Mali-style Muslim terrorist attacks, such as halting the admission of Syrian refugees into the country or at least greatly toughening the screening process.

We know that at least one of the Muslim terrorists involved in the Paris terrorist attacks--indeed, the mastermind behind the attacks--entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. Just in the last two days, at least 11 Muslims have been caught trying to enter the U.S. with fake passports via the Southern border. The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees (don't bother me with the meaningless technical distinction between "asylee" and "refugee"--to be granted asylum, you must meet the definition of "refugee," even though you are designated an "asylee" because you applied for asylum after you reached the country). The Muslim terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack were the children of first-generation immigrants.

Given these and other facts, it is entirely rational and prudent to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into this country--or at the very least to vastly toughen the screening process and to devise a way to monitor them closely after they enter the country.

But it seems questionable that we can screen thousands of Syrian refugees thoroughly enough that no terrorist could sneak in by posing as a refugee. The 600-some detainees who have been released from Gitmo were subjected to a very thorough, prolonged screening process, which included the use of polygraphs, yet 168 of them have returned to terrorism. So if we missed 168 out of 600 detainees at Gitmo, what are the odds that we could detect any and all bad guys among the Syrian refugees? Pretty slim.

Percent Of Detainees Who Return To Terrorism After Release Edges Up

Dozens feared dead as hostage situation in Mali hotel ends

At least two Paris attackers 'took migrant route into Europe'

http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/11/17/ten-major-arrests-of-terrorist-immigrants/

Syrians Detained Trying to Cross Texas Border: Report

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

 

[daws101]

'Hysterical Fear' is any rational, valid fear felt or concern over our national security as a result of admitted failed policies / strategy - such as the half-ass effort to contain ISIS, failure to prevent repeated terrorist attacks on the US, and the failure to protect American lives... fear that threatens the Islamic Extremist-facilitating actions of Barak Obama.

that statement is in and of itself "]'Hysterical Fear'
with
a shitload of propaganda thrown in.

 

[daws101]

ohh no!not the dirty bomb threat ploy again!

...he then goes on to try to minimize the threat...'nuff said.

false it a very old threat and is no different or more imminent than any of the millions of threats the us get daily
you trying to play it off as such is as old a ploy as there is.
your paranoia is palpable.
being threaten by the bad guys is part of the game.
the question is are we ready to deal with them or cause panic as you asshole are attempting to do.
here's an idea ,hide in the bomb shelter you grandpa built when everybody was absofuckinglutly positive the ussr would be nuking us any second now!

 

[CremeBrulee]

Now that Muslim terrorists have killed 27 more people, this time in Mali, just days after over 100 people were killed in Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, one wonders how liberals will define "hysterical fear" as they seek to smear Americans who support perfectly sane, reasonable precautions to protect us against Paris-style and Mali-style Muslim terrorist attacks, such as halting the admission of Syrian refugees into the country or at least greatly toughening the screening process.

We know that at least one of the Muslim terrorists involved in the Paris terrorist attacks--indeed, the mastermind behind the attacks--entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. Just in the last two days, at least 11 Muslims have been caught trying to enter the U.S. with fake passports via the Southern border. The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees (don't bother me with the meaningless technical distinction between "asylee" and "refugee"--to be granted asylum, you must meet the definition of "refugee," even though you are designated an "asylee" because you applied for asylum after you reached the country). The Muslim terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack were the children of first-generation immigrants.

Given these and other facts, it is entirely rational and prudent to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into this country--or at the very least to vastly toughen the screening process and to devise a way to monitor them closely after they enter the country.

But it seems questionable that we can screen thousands of Syrian refugees thoroughly enough that no terrorist could sneak in by posing as a refugee. The 600-some detainees who have been released from Gitmo were subjected to a very thorough, prolonged screening process, which included the use of polygraphs, yet 168 of them have returned to terrorism. So if we missed 168 out of 600 detainees at Gitmo, what are the odds that we could detect any and all bad guys among the Syrian refugees? Pretty slim.

Percent Of Detainees Who Return To Terrorism After Release Edges Up

Dozens feared dead as hostage situation in Mali hotel ends

At least two Paris attackers 'took migrant route into Europe'

http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/11/17/ten-major-arrests-of-terrorist-immigrants/

Syrians Detained Trying to Cross Texas Border: Report

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

That was a decent article considering Mr. Milbank can be all over the political spectrum in his writing. It's hard to tell which side he will be coming from in any given editorial.

 

[Skylar]

Sadly, even if the USA is hit again and americans are killed, the dem/libs will continue to pretend that radical Islamic terrorism does not exist.

Its a form of insanity that only liberals exhibit. Denial of reality if the reality does not fit their fantasy filled ideology.

Which liberal has said that radical Islamic terrorism doesn't exist? What liberals have said is that its foolish and deeply bigoted to condemn *all* Muslims for the actions of a comparative handful of extremists.

It would be analogous to concluding that all gun owners are homicidal maniacs because one guy goes on a 1st grader shooting spree. And yet blanket condemnation of muslims has sharply increased among conservatives.

Vetting makes sense. Outright prohibition? Its giving into the fear. And worse, its playing right into ISIS's hands. As right now they are facing a crisis: their tax payer base is fleeing the territory it controls. They're actively trying to prevent refugees from leaving and threatening those who have left.

They *need* us to reject refugees. Their strategy fails without it.

 

[Dan Daly]

Now that Muslim terrorists have killed 27 more people, this time in Mali, just days after over 100 people were killed in Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, one wonders how liberals will define "hysterical fear" as they seek to smear Americans who support perfectly sane, reasonable precautions to protect us against Paris-style and Mali-style Muslim terrorist attacks, such as halting the admission of Syrian refugees into the country or at least greatly toughening the screening process.

Excuse me if I am skeptical of anyone who uses the words "sane and reasonable" concerning public policy anymore...it's become the language of wannabe-tryant, snake-oil salesmen trying to sell us on giving away our essential liberties for a false sense of security.

 

[Redfish]

Now that Muslim terrorists have killed 27 more people, this time in Mali, just days after over 100 people were killed in Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, one wonders how liberals will define "hysterical fear" as they seek to smear Americans who support perfectly sane, reasonable precautions to protect us against Paris-style and Mali-style Muslim terrorist attacks, such as halting the admission of Syrian refugees into the country or at least greatly toughening the screening process.

We know that at least one of the Muslim terrorists involved in the Paris terrorist attacks--indeed, the mastermind behind the attacks--entered France by posing as a Syrian refugee. Just in the last two days, at least 11 Muslims have been caught trying to enter the U.S. with fake passports via the Southern border. The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees (don't bother me with the meaningless technical distinction between "asylee" and "refugee"--to be granted asylum, you must meet the definition of "refugee," even though you are designated an "asylee" because you applied for asylum after you reached the country). The Muslim terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack were the children of first-generation immigrants.

Given these and other facts, it is entirely rational and prudent to halt the admission of Syrian refugees into this country--or at the very least to vastly toughen the screening process and to devise a way to monitor them closely after they enter the country.

But it seems questionable that we can screen thousands of Syrian refugees thoroughly enough that no terrorist could sneak in by posing as a refugee. The 600-some detainees who have been released from Gitmo were subjected to a very thorough, prolonged screening process, which included the use of polygraphs, yet 168 of them have returned to terrorism. So if we missed 168 out of 600 detainees at Gitmo, what are the odds that we could detect any and all bad guys among the Syrian refugees? Pretty slim.

Percent Of Detainees Who Return To Terrorism After Release Edges Up

Dozens feared dead as hostage situation in Mali hotel ends

At least two Paris attackers 'took migrant route into Europe'

http://www.thepcgraveyard.com/2015/11/17/ten-major-arrests-of-terrorist-immigrants/

Syrians Detained Trying to Cross Texas Border: Report

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

 

[daws101]

Based on the tards' beliefs about all Muslims based on the actions of ISIS, one has to wonder why the tards aren't shitting their pants about the people they know, since those people they know are a gazillion times more likely to kill them than ISIS is.

How come the tards aren't starting topic after topic after topic after topic about how dangerous the people they know are?

Yeah but that's different!

Is it? how is the black on black murder rate different? why is there no left wing uproar about the thousands of black on black murders every year? Are those inner city blacks the people you were calling tards for not fearing the people they know?

who's you ?
I've never called anybody a tard, black or white until they've proven themselves to be one.
you are a gold medal winning tard.
murder is murder it makes no color distinction ,neither do I .
you do, it to create the illusion that conservatives (not all) are not racist.
funny, because ALL white racist groups are republicans.

I was responding to a post by your buddy G5000. If you paid more attention you might not appear so dumb. What color are black racist groups? What color are Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan? The idea that only whites can be racist is just plain stupid.

your judgment on what's dumb and what's not is meaningless.
of the three you mentioned the only racist is Farrakhan.
if you could reads you'd have seen "
murder is murder it makes no color distinction ,neither do I .
you do, it to create the illusion that conservatives (not all) are not racist.
funny, because ALL white racist groups are republicans.
I didn't make mention of the fact that not just whites can be racist because anyone with live brain cells knows that.
only assholes like you need to have the obvious spoon fed to them.

 

[Redfish]

Sadly, even if the USA is hit again and americans are killed, the dem/libs will continue to pretend that radical Islamic terrorism does not exist.

Its a form of insanity that only liberals exhibit. Denial of reality if the reality does not fit their fantasy filled ideology.

Which liberal has said that radical Islamic terrorism doesn't exist? What liberals have said is that its foolish and deeply bigoted to condemn *all* Muslims for the actions of a comparative handful of extremists.

It would be analogous to concluding that all gun owners are homicidal maniacs because one guy goes on a 1st grader shooting spree. And yet blanket condemnation of muslims has sharply increased among conservatives.

Vetting makes sense. Outright prohibition? Its giving into the fear. And worse, its playing right into ISIS's hands. As right now they are facing a crisis: their tax payer base is fleeing the territory it controls. They're actively trying to prevent refugees from leaving and threatening those who have left.

They *need* us to reject refugees. Their strategy fails without it.

Obama and the hildebeast refuse to use those words. doesn't that equate to saying it does not exist?

We cannot defeat an enemy that we refuse to identify.

But tell me, who would be offended by the words "radical Islamic terrorist" ? Exactly who?

 

[Skylar]

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

Says the guy who routinely quotes unsourced WordPress blogs with the retort 'prove they're wrong!!' if asked to back such quotes with actual evidence.

Red.....your only standard of credibility is that a source says what you already believe. Its why unsourced blog posts are gospel truth to you, despite having no named source. And the Washington post is ignored for having no named source.

But tell us again how 'fricken naive' it is the cite anonymous sources? Because I can quote you doing it.

 

[daws101]

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

thanks captain everything's a conspiracy!
an adult would have admitted to being wrong.

 

[Redfish]

Based on the tards' beliefs about all Muslims based on the actions of ISIS, one has to wonder why the tards aren't shitting their pants about the people they know, since those people they know are a gazillion times more likely to kill them than ISIS is.

How come the tards aren't starting topic after topic after topic after topic about how dangerous the people they know are?

Yeah but that's different!

Is it? how is the black on black murder rate different? why is there no left wing uproar about the thousands of black on black murders every year? Are those inner city blacks the people you were calling tards for not fearing the people they know?

who's you ?
I've never called anybody a tard, black or white until they've proven themselves to be one.
you are a gold medal winning tard.
murder is murder it makes no color distinction ,neither do I .
you do, it to create the illusion that conservatives (not all) are not racist.
funny, because ALL white racist groups are republicans.

I was responding to a post by your buddy G5000. If you paid more attention you might not appear so dumb. What color are black racist groups? What color are Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan? The idea that only whites can be racist is just plain stupid.

your judgment on what's dumb and what's not is meaningless.
of the three you mentioned the only racist is Farrakhan.
if you could reads you'd have seen "
murder is murder it makes no color distinction ,neither do I .
you do, it to create the illusion that conservatives (not all) are not racist.
funny, because ALL white racist groups are republicans.
I didn't make mention of the fact that not just whites can be racist because anyone with live brain cells knows that.
only assholes like you need to have the obvious spoon fed to them.

The KKK was made up almost exclusively of democrats. Was the KKK racist?

and if you think that Sharpton and Jackson are not racist, then you are living in some kind of parallel universe.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Here are the leading causes of death in the US:

ISIS didn't make the list.

Neither did Muslims.

Neither did Ebola.

Neither did Obama.


In fact, you are way, way, way more likely to be shot to death by someone you know than to be killed by ISIS.


So...yeah. Hysterical fear. Yes. Definitely.

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

As opposed to someone named Redfish on the internet. I'll take Mr. Milbank, the Post, and Time with an unnamed quote in every instance.

 

[Redfish]

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

thanks captain everything's a conspiracy!
an adult would have admitted to being wrong.

The two sources that you used are both biased and left wing. it is what it is.

 

[Redfish]

So should we just open our borders and let in every radical who has declared Jihad on the USA?

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

The people who died on 9/11 and in Paris might take issue with your attitude, if they were still here.

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

As opposed to someone named Redfish on the internet. I'll take Mr. Milbank, the Post, and Time with an unnamed quote in every instance.

its a free country, you can believe whatever you want. I really don't give a shit what you believe. your opinions have no value or credence, but I support your right to state them.

 

[daws101]

Yeah but that's different!

Is it? how is the black on black murder rate different? why is there no left wing uproar about the thousands of black on black murders every year? Are those inner city blacks the people you were calling tards for not fearing the people they know?

who's you ?
I've never called anybody a tard, black or white until they've proven themselves to be one.
you are a gold medal winning tard.
murder is murder it makes no color distinction ,neither do I .
you do, it to create the illusion that conservatives (not all) are not racist.
funny, because ALL white racist groups are republicans.

I was responding to a post by your buddy G5000. If you paid more attention you might not appear so dumb. What color are black racist groups? What color are Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan? The idea that only whites can be racist is just plain stupid.

your judgment on what's dumb and what's not is meaningless.
of the three you mentioned the only racist is Farrakhan.
if you could reads you'd have seen "
murder is murder it makes no color distinction ,neither do I .
you do, it to create the illusion that conservatives (not all) are not racist.
funny, because ALL white racist groups are republicans.
I didn't make mention of the fact that not just whites can be racist because anyone with live brain cells knows that.
only assholes like you need to have the obvious spoon fed to them.

The KKK was made up almost exclusively of democrats. Was the KKK racist?

and if you think that Sharpton and Jackson are not racist, then you are living in some kind of parallel universe.

that has jack shit to do with the topic .
also it was more than 50 years ago.
since then it you guys who are home to the kkk.
having to bring that up just proves you and reality have never net.

 

[daws101]

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

thanks captain everything's a conspiracy!
an adult would have admitted to being wrong.

The two sources that you used are both biased and left wing. it is what it is.

bias is bad when you're wrong..
so you have no argument

 

[Redfish]

Is it? how is the black on black murder rate different? why is there no left wing uproar about the thousands of black on black murders every year? Are those inner city blacks the people you were calling tards for not fearing the people they know?

who's you ?
I've never called anybody a tard, black or white until they've proven themselves to be one.
you are a gold medal winning tard.
murder is murder it makes no color distinction ,neither do I .
you do, it to create the illusion that conservatives (not all) are not racist.
funny, because ALL white racist groups are republicans.

I was responding to a post by your buddy G5000. If you paid more attention you might not appear so dumb. What color are black racist groups? What color are Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan? The idea that only whites can be racist is just plain stupid.

your judgment on what's dumb and what's not is meaningless.
of the three you mentioned the only racist is Farrakhan.
if you could reads you'd have seen "
murder is murder it makes no color distinction ,neither do I .
you do, it to create the illusion that conservatives (not all) are not racist.
funny, because ALL white racist groups are republicans.
I didn't make mention of the fact that not just whites can be racist because anyone with live brain cells knows that.
only assholes like you need to have the obvious spoon fed to them.

The KKK was made up almost exclusively of democrats. Was the KKK racist?

and if you think that Sharpton and Jackson are not racist, then you are living in some kind of parallel universe.

that has jack shit to do with the topic .
also it was more than 50 years ago.
since then it you guys who are home to the kkk.
having to bring that up just proves you and reality have never net.

you claimed that dems were not racist, I merely proved you wrong. BTW, the KKK was strongest in the Midwest states of Illinois and Missouri.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

As opposed to someone named Redfish on the internet. I'll take Mr. Milbank, the Post, and Time with an unnamed quote in every instance.

its a free country, you can believe whatever you want. I really don't give a shit what you believe. your opinions have no value or credence, but I support your right to state them.

But....but I thought it was 'fricken naive' to quote unnamed sources. And yet you do it regularly.

What happened to your mantra of 'prove them wrong' when we asked you to back the drivel spewed by some random WordPress blog post you cited?

Sigh......'fricken naive' indeed.