Paris

[Chocolate Shake Man]

US Citizens moving from state to state is in no way related to Syrian refugees.  And, since the refugees do pose a possible threat, it is 100% a safety issue.  

Citzens who move from state to state pose a possible threat so why don't you treat that like the safety issue it is?

Of course terrorists can find ways to commit crimes against a country.  9/11/01 is the best example of that.  But, why in the world would we want to make it easier for them?  

Why make it easier for criminals to access guns?

[Emily]

I usually steer clear of political discussions on here for the most part.

But, I just don't understand how people can see what happened in France just five days ago, and still be in favor of the United States bringing in Syrian refugees.  

As MB said, simply saying that the US already has its share of internal threats doesn't justify bringing in more possible threats.  

Read my most recent post.
ETA: Sorry, that was too curt.
It's not right (in terms of ethics and statistics) to generalize to all Syrians based on a few. And in the US, we have a long history of struggling toward equal treatment under the law. I'm not interested in taking a backward step.

Sorry, Emily, you and I will also have to agree to disagree. 

I don't see looking out for our nation's safety as taking a step back, but a step forward.  Maybe this is the first step of the United States finally taking care of its own.

Again, what you are saying does not contribute to the nation's safety. First, the premise that Syrians are more dangerous than other immigrants is flat out wrong. Second, the solution to terrorism is not to generate more impoverished, repressed, terrorized people, which is what the many suggestion on this thread would do.
I'm sorry KDS. if this sounds brusque, but I've been repeating this point - Syrians kill less than Americans - for a while and the response is still "so letting them immigrate is dangerous." This makes no basic logical sense.

[Emily]

And are you reaffirming my point I made yesterday which you ignored which was that some actions have predictable consequences and therefore we have an obligation to put an end to the actions that we know will have negative consequences?

I'm more worried about our nations obligation to keep it citizens out of harm's way. As I've stated already, the tensions in the Middle East can't be fixed. Leave well alone and let them carry on murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries.

Do you have any support for this assertion?
Europeans have murdered more of both each other and of non-Europeans by far during recorded history.

Another history lesson and again not relevant to the fact that Islamic madmen are currently killing Westerners.

Yes, but it was a direct response to your tangential slur about them "murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries." The fact that you will make a slur like that reveals much about your true motives.

[Mike's Beard]

Yes, but what can't get absorbed here is that Syrians have shown themselves to be less homicidal than Americans.
Again Less Homicidal (Syrians) + More Homicidal (Americans) = Lesser density of homicidal,
Please... please please don't pretend again that you don't understand that basic equation.

Your logic seems to be "Well there's 100 people over there and 5 of them are homicidal maniacs. Let's dump another 500 people in with them of which 5 of them are homicidal maniacs also. There'll be more homicidal maniacs altogether so more people getting killed but as they'll be spread out amongst more people, the odds of you being one of the people that will get killed by them is reduced, so it's a-okay".

[Mike's Beard]

Yes, but it was a direct response to your tangential slur about them "murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries." The fact that you will make a slur like that reveals much about your true motives.

My motives are I don't want anymore people to be killed by these rabid dogs, especially if one of them is me.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yes, but it was a direct response to your tangential slur about them "murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries." The fact that you will make a slur like that reveals much about your true motives.

My motives are I don't want anymore people to be killed by these rabid dogs, especially if one of them is me.

In that case, are you in favour of ceasing policies that are increasing the threat of terror?

[Emily]

Yes, but what can't get absorbed here is that Syrians have shown themselves to be less homicidal than Americans.
Again Less Homicidal (Syrians) + More Homicidal (Americans) = Lesser density of homicidal,
Please... please please don't pretend again that you don't understand that basic equation.

Your logic seems to be "Well there's 100 people over there and 5 of them are homicidal maniacs. Let's dump another 500 people in with them of which 5 of them are homicidal maniacs also. There'll be more homicidal maniacs altogether so more people getting killed but as they'll be spread out amongst more people, the odds of you being one of the people that will get killed by them is reduced, so it's a-okay".

If you are advocating closed borders altogether, against everyone, this would be an argument. As we are not closing borders altogether against everyone, and as we do have a somewhat fixed quantity of Visas released per year, giving a proportion of those Visas to some of the least likely to commit homicide would decrease the proportion of homicidal madmen than giving those Visas to, say, Europeans.

[Emily]

Yes, but it was a direct response to your tangential slur about them "murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries." The fact that you will make a slur like that reveals much about your true motives.

My motives are I don't want anymore people to be killed by these rabid dogs, especially if one of them is me.

If that were your actual motive, I suspect you would show some interest in learning how to lessen the threat.

[Mike's Beard]

Yes, but what can't get absorbed here is that Syrians have shown themselves to be less homicidal than Americans.
Again Less Homicidal (Syrians) + More Homicidal (Americans) = Lesser density of homicidal,
Please... please please don't pretend again that you don't understand that basic equation.

Your logic seems to be "Well there's 100 people over there and 5 of them are homicidal maniacs. Let's dump another 500 people in with them of which 5 of them are homicidal maniacs also. There'll be more homicidal maniacs altogether so more people getting killed but as they'll be spread out amongst more people, the odds of you being one of the people that will get killed by them is reduced, so it's a-okay".

If you are advocating closed borders altogether, against everyone, this would be an argument. As we are not closing borders altogether against everyone, and as we do have a somewhat fixed quantity of Visas released per year, giving a proportion of those Visas to some of the least likely to commit homicide would decrease the proportion of homicidal madmen than giving those Visas to, say, Europeans.

So if you had a choice between living in Syria or any European country, you'd choose Syria, yes? Seeing as how they're all so much more peace loving people an' all. Wait, why aren't you there already if the people are so great?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

So if you had a choice between living in Syria or any European country, you'd choose Syria, yes? Seeing as how they're all so much more peace loving people an' all. Wait, why aren't you there already if the people are so great?

Where would you rather live, Syria or Germany?

[Emily]

Yes, but what can't get absorbed here is that Syrians have shown themselves to be less homicidal than Americans.
Again Less Homicidal (Syrians) + More Homicidal (Americans) = Lesser density of homicidal,
Please... please please don't pretend again that you don't understand that basic equation.

Your logic seems to be "Well there's 100 people over there and 5 of them are homicidal maniacs. Let's dump another 500 people in with them of which 5 of them are homicidal maniacs also. There'll be more homicidal maniacs altogether so more people getting killed but as they'll be spread out amongst more people, the odds of you being one of the people that will get killed by them is reduced, so it's a-okay".

If you are advocating closed borders altogether, against everyone, this would be an argument. As we are not closing borders altogether against everyone, and as we do have a somewhat fixed quantity of Visas released per year, giving a proportion of those Visas to some of the least likely to commit homicide would decrease the proportion of homicidal madmen than giving those Visas to, say, Europeans.

So if you had a choice between living in Syria or any European country, you'd choose Syria, yes? Seeing as how they're all so much more peace loving people an' all. Wait, why aren't you there already if the people are so great?

No. Their economy isn't doing very well and of course there's a very violent political situation at the moment.
There's also the problem of legal immigration. I'd prefer if all borders were completely open, then I could live where I want, but as it is, we all have very limited freedom in terms of deciding where to live.
ETA: I also don't speak the language, which is a hindrance; and I'm more of a winter/precipitation lover than a summer/sun lover.

[Mike's Beard]

So if you had a choice between living in Syria or any European country, you'd choose Syria, yes? Seeing as how they're all so much more peace loving people an' all. Wait, why aren't you there already if the people are so great?

Where would you rather live, Syria or Germany?

Thanks to Merkel, neither!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yes, but it was a direct response to your tangential slur about them "murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries." The fact that you will make a slur like that reveals much about your true motives.

My motives are I don't want anymore people to be killed by these rabid dogs, especially if one of them is me.

In that case, are you in favour of ceasing policies that are increasing the threat of terror?

This has now gone unanswered twice in this conversation. Why is that?

[Bean Bag]

My motives are I don't want anymore people to be killed by these rabid dogs, especially if one of them is me.

However, with each post, it becomes more and more apparent that this is NOT the agenda of the Progressives.  Their primary objective is to do the dance --

-- and advance the Progressive agenda.  First, foremost and always.

[Emily]

It is true that to do the Carlton is my primary objective in life. Peace on Earth is second.

[the captain]

For fine examples of dancing, see Dana Milibank's W Post opinion piece today highlighting the GOP's intended strategy. Let's see, there was coming up with a strategy. Showing American leadership. Rising to the challenge. Showing courage and resolve. Show a path forward. sh*t, problem solved! Good work.

Now about passing some legislation to authorize this sweet plan...

[Mike's Beard]

Yes, but it was a direct response to your tangential slur about them "murdering each other, just as they've been doing for centuries." The fact that you will make a slur like that reveals much about your true motives.

My motives are I don't want anymore people to be killed by these rabid dogs, especially if one of them is me.

In that case, are you in favour of ceasing policies that are increasing the threat of terror?

This has now gone unanswered twice in this conversation. Why is that?

(a) I'm under no obligation to answer you.
(b) I've been out for a few hours and
(c) I've already answered the question.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

(a) I'm under no obligation to answer you.

I didn't suggest that you were but you've responded to me so many times, I was just curious why this question was repeatedly evaded.

(b) I've been out for a few hours

You weren't out when I asked the question twice because you were posting at the same time I asked them.

(c) I've already answered the question.

Please point me to the post of yours where you have answered the question.

[Bean Bag]

It is true that to do the Carlton is my primary objective in life. Peace on Earth is second.

 Carlton dancing is strangely hypnotizing.  So is the idea of Peace.  I get it.  Progressives have a long history of wanting to achieve lofty goals.  Purity.  Something always gets in the way.  Religion.  People.  Liberty.

Listen, I don't want to draw this out... so may I suggest that radical Muslims are not the biggest threat to the Progressive agenda?

[Bean Bag]

Yes. Bean Bag's right.  It's the Climate.

Can't argue with FrankenBernie guys.  Stop pretendin'.  You're Progressives.

Climate change.

That's right Bernie.  The climate's-a-changin'. 

 

[Bean Bag]

No, it's the video!  The video made them do it.  That's the threat--

[Bean Bag]

Don't let Paris take the spotlight -- get your BLM gear today!

[Jim V.]

Sure sucks for people like Bags that it is just so tough to be a middle-aged white guy in America these days. So many things stacked against them. Just insurmountable odds to beat.

Poor guy.

[Mike's Beard]

Please point me to the post of yours where you have answered the question.

I have said several times that the West should leave the Middle East alone.

[filledeplage]

New to me is info about a drug called Captogan which has been found in the bodies of the attackers in Paris.

Seems to be big production in Syria and helping fund the effort.

This drug is a type of amphetamine causing a felling of empowerment and invincibility is propelling attackers during raids and attacks.

http://thestonedsociety.com/2015/02/08/drugs-isis-captagon

https://fr.yahoo.com/     This is in their lead story section.  They did an expanded discussion about the drug on télématin which can be found via fr2/télématin

http://www.hautnews.com/news-2/world-news/1110-saudi-prince-charged-with-captagon-trafficking-and-another-1-5-million-pills-apprehended-at-beirut-airport

Hope it copies...