# Finally Some Common Sense On Syrian Refugees



## TRENCHLORD (Dec 9, 2015)

Very impressed with Rubio's views on the refugee crisis.
Our government's responsibility should be first to our own citizens, not our global "popularity" as the Obama-Clinton doctrine seems to prioritize.

We come first IMO, since this is our nation. You can't allow the entry of those that we have little to no personal info on.


----------



## Insomnia (Dec 9, 2015)

Interesting take. Can't say I totally agree with him, but he seems a helluva lot more knowledgeable than Trump.


----------



## Glosni (Dec 9, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> We come first IMO, since this is our nation.



Great to see those often touted american-christian values in action. Shining city on the hill, anyone? Bring me your huddled masses, does that ring a bell? "Your" nation is supposed to be the home of the brave, but refugees fleeing unimagenable violence and tragedy, some of them children, just scare you to the point of turning you back on some of the most desperate people on this planet?

I wonder if the Fox/GOP rhetoric would be different if most of those values would be christian instead of muslim.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 9, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Very impressed with Rubio's views on the refugee crisis.
> 
> Our government's responsibility should be first to our own citizens, not our global "popularity" as the Obama-Clinton doctrine seems to prioritize.



You skipped over Rubio refuting you, in as far as when secular law like the Constitution is in conflict with religious rules, "God's law always wins."

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153730656743486&id=649998485&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2Fplugins%2Fvideo.php&locale2=en_US&_rdr

That means that only government is more about protecting the christian faith for Rubio than the citizens.

Sorry you weren't aware that Rubio thinks the laws of Yahweh trump the Constitution in the US. That's the same basis of government embraced by other religious regimes in other countries, and it doesn't look like freedom is the plan of any of these types.

I'm looking forward to the apologetics on this one.


----------



## Millul (Dec 9, 2015)

No Yahweh for Rubio, Explorer: that's a Jew thingie, Rubio doesn't do no Jew thingies, you know?


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Dec 9, 2015)

Millul said:


> No Yahweh for Rubio, Explorer: that's a Jew thingie, Rubio doesn't do no Jew thingies, you know?



That's an old testament thing Mang.



> Our government's responsibility should be first to our own citizens, not our global "popularity" as the Obama-Clinton doctrine seems to prioritize.
> 
> We come first IMO, since this is our nation. You can't allow the entry of those that we have little to no personal info on.



Tell me how hard you worked to be born in your country. I finding it disgusting that a government can bomb civilians on a whim, then turn around and say .... like "we can't let them in because we don't know who they are" (i'm paraphrasing of course). show some ....ing empathy.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 9, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> We come first IMO, since this is our nation. You can't allow the entry of those that we have little to no personal info on.


Yeah, about that...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 9, 2015)

Most of the people I hear saying that we need to take care of our own people first as a reason to deny entry to refugees are the same people who are vocally opposed to government healthcare and socialized welfare. It's a bizarre disconnect, to be sure.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 9, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Most of the people I hear saying that we need to take care of our own people first as a reason to deny entry to refugees are the same people who are vocally opposed to government healthcare and socialized welfare. It's a bizarre disconnect, to be sure.


Our own people come first but those goddamn lazy bums should get a job! Or something! Screw mental health, man up and get over your PTSD!


----------



## narad (Dec 9, 2015)

The thought that we would ever have significant info to discern between terrorists and non-terrorists upon entry into a country is hilarious. Just the thought that there is a database with any information at all about some random person who has lived in some far away country their entire life, let alone the enough to profile them for possibly having malicious intent! I'm all for rejecting admittance if there is serious evidence of intent and this is assessed by a proper court and not some random airport security team, but your base case for 0 info has to be acceptance. Otherwise you're turning your back on a core tenet of America.

Though I like that Rubio pushed on with the merit-based permanent immigration policy. I've seen far too many friends have to leave the country after completing masters (and even PhDs) at top US schools.


----------



## Grindspine (Dec 9, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Most of the people I hear saying that we need to take care of our own people first as a reason to deny entry to refugees are the same people who are vocally opposed to government healthcare and socialized welfare. It's a bizarre disconnect, to be sure.



Quoted for truth!

And, yeah, this too!



>


----------



## vilk (Dec 9, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Most of the people I hear saying that we need to take care of our own people first as a reason to deny entry to refugees are the same people who are vocally opposed to government healthcare and socialized welfare. It's a bizarre disconnect, to be sure.



Yeah, but to those people, "our own people" means white people.


----------



## asher (Dec 9, 2015)

vilk said:


> Yeah, but to those people, "our own people" means white people.



...plenty of whom need those social programs they love to cut, in fact.

Though they've convinced many of those people otherwise.


----------



## lelandbowman3 (Dec 9, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> Yeah, about that...



Didn't turn out too well for the Natives, did it?


----------



## asher (Dec 9, 2015)

lelandbowman3 said:


> Didn't turn out too well for the Natives, did it?



It's kind of amusing, but it's a terrible analogy either way.


----------



## crg123 (Dec 10, 2015)

Insomnia said:


> Interesting take. Can't say I totally agree with him, but he seems a helluva lot more knowledgeable than Trump.



http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/12/08/msnbcs-maddow-highlights-how-voices-in-the-righ/207361

Kind of how I feel about the whole Trump thing. Make the radical ideas seem less radical by having some guy spewing non sense. I find it pretty funny some of these candidates condemn him when these are also the people who thought we should have a religious test to make sure the refugees we do take in are Christian. 

To his credit Rubio did not agree with that. His "God's law always wins." stuff he was spouting about gay marriage and abortion does worry me though. We were founded on a separation of church in state. If you're curious about some more information on this, this is a decent article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/a-christian-nation-since-when.html

About the vetting process currently in place: http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy. These politicians act like we don't do any screening. The visa process is more problematic and even THAT is a cluster f^%#


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 10, 2015)

lelandbowman3 said:


> Didn't turn out too well for the Natives, did it?



That doesn't make their choice to accept newcomers any less noble. And being that we know better, it's not like we can't take steps to keep an eye on them once we've allowed them to enter. Those wishing to enter legally are essentially allowing us to tag them like wild animals. We get illegal immigrants all day every day anyway, don't we? That's still an issue we'd have to tackle whether Syrians wish to immigrate to this country or not. From what I hear, a large majority of them don't even want to be here. I imagine a lot of them didn't really want to leave their home until it became necessary to do so.

If I recall, the folks that came here were seeking religious freedom. They weren't even running from anything as bad as what those now seeking refuge face. To say, "It didn't work out so great for the Natives,"--in my eyes--is a cop out at best. A petty one at that.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 10, 2015)

edit: op banned. nvm. not worth it. lol.

edit 2: looks like someone is GLUED to this forum.


----------



## narad (Dec 10, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> "from what i hear"
> "i imagine"
> "if i recall"
> 
> How about sources?



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...yrian-refugees-want-to-move-to-north-america/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Fathers

voila.


----------



## chaneisa (Dec 10, 2015)

The sad thing is we can't really weed out those will ill intent, but if we deny 1000 because 1 might be bad, we are, as previously stated, going against some of the things America stands for. It'd be killer if there were ways to monitor immigrants and effectively find that 1/1000, but we simply can't. There's too many coming in, and too few are actually here to do harm.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 10, 2015)

chaneisa said:


> The sad thing is we can't really weed out those will ill intent, but if we deny 1000 because 1 might be bad, we are, as previously stated, going against some of the things America stands for. It'd be killer if there were ways to monitor immigrants and effectively find that 1/1000, but we simply can't. There's too many coming in, and too few are actually here to do harm.



What is interesting about the logic of banning all in order to prevent harm from a few is that it is an inversion of the logic used to justify availability of weapons, in spite of the constant mass shootings by mostly white males of christian origin. 

It's always puzzling to see an embrace of two arguments which are diametrically opposed, and which require accepting or rejecting the same basic logic. That just reeks of having a hidden motive which one is just veiling to make more palatable. 

What's interesting is, if one were to remove the weapons from the situation, you''d have removed the ability of both the muslim *and* the christian terrorists to go on mass shooting sprees. That's what keeps the inverse argument from being a dichotomy.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 10, 2015)

It took me a moment to find, but here's the logic in a nutshell.


----------



## Mprinsje (Dec 10, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> We come first IMO, since this is our nation. You can't allow the entry of those that we have little to no personal info on.



Jesus christ, nationalism/patriottism is the stupidest .... known to man. You didn't do jack .... to be born where you were, you don't deserve some kind of special treatment just because you were by sheer cause of coincidence born on that piece of the earth.


----------



## AxeHappy (Dec 11, 2015)

Explorer said:


> What is interesting about the logic of banning all in order to prevent harm from a few is that it is an inversion of the logic used to justify availability of weapons, in spite of the constant mass shootings by mostly white males of christian origin.
> 
> It's always puzzling to see an embrace of two arguments which are diametrically opposed, and which require accepting or rejecting the same basic logic. That just reeks of having a hidden motive which one is just veiling to make more palatable.



So much this. It's like when terrorists destroy something in the name of religion, and then all the people who want to ban gun are all like, "RELIGION ISN'T PART OF THE PROBLEM. IT'S JUST A FEW BAD APPLES." 

And then the gun nutters, as you say, flip their logic around too. For ....'s sake people...


----------



## ncfiala (Dec 11, 2015)

Explorer said:


> What is interesting about the logic of banning all in order to prevent harm from a few is that it is an inversion of the logic used to justify availability of weapons, in spite of the constant mass shootings by mostly white males of christian origin.
> 
> It's always puzzling to see an embrace of two arguments which are diametrically opposed, and which require accepting or rejecting the same basic logic. That just reeks of having a hidden motive which one is just veiling to make more palatable.
> 
> What's interesting is, if one were to remove the weapons from the situation, you''d have removed the ability of both the muslim *and* the christian terrorists to go on mass shooting sprees. That's what keeps the inverse argument from being a dichotomy.


 
There is a big difference between these two situations that you fail to mention. The Constitution grants American citizens the right to bear arms but it is completely silent on immigration. No one has a right to come here.


----------



## AxeHappy (Dec 11, 2015)

The constitution doesn't explicitly cover immigration law to the extent it's being argued as of late.

However, the constitution does prohibit religious persecution and advises that people who ARE being persecuted by means of religious discrimination WILL be given asylum without religious persecution.


----------



## chaneisa (Dec 11, 2015)

This is my problem with politics. The middle ground that would be taking us in a better direction on certain issues can't be found because, commonly, neither side is willing to compromise. Both sides want their way without question, exactly as they see it, and that's the problem. I am a huge advocate of the right to carry, and I think people should be able to purchase firearms. But I don't believe the lack of restrictions we currently have on them is acceptable. I don't believe abortion is ok, BUT, I'm not one to deny a woman her right to such a thing. I would never do it/be ok with it if my spouse/girlfriend requested it, but it's not my call as to whether you can or not. I'm a Christian, and I am embarrassed by how ridiculous Christians have become in this country. The problem is everyone thinks their ideals are so perfect and pure that neither side is willing to budge.


----------



## metallic1 (Dec 11, 2015)

Those people hate us, and allways have. If not for their situation, that their own government 
Got them into in the first place, they would be vocal about it, just like they were before their 
World imploded. They don't belong here, them and the isis scum that will undoubtedly leak
In with them.
When terror begins in the U.S, and is directly linked to people let in as refugees, then
America will know it was a mistake to let them in.
On a side note-- I'm an American who loves his country, and the freedom that is 
Found in it., I just have little to no respect for the clowns who are elected into
Power, have been running this country into the ground.
I personally believe there is no one who qualifies for the job of the next president 
Of the United States.

Edit- I missed the fact that the op was banned... O well.


----------



## asher (Dec 11, 2015)

metallic1 said:


> Those people hate us, and allways have. If not for their situation, that their own government
> Got them into in the first place,



Are you talking about the part fourteen years ago where we decided to fly on down there and wreck everyone's ...., make a mess, then leave?


----------



## kmanick (Dec 11, 2015)

Glosni said:


> Great to see those often touted american-christian values in action. Shining city on the hill, anyone? Bring me your huddled masses, does that ring a bell? "Your" nation is supposed to be the home of the brave, but refugees fleeing unimagenable violence and tragedy, some of them children, just scare you to the point of turning you back on some of the most desperate people on this planet?
> 
> I wonder if the Fox/GOP rhetoric would be different if most of those values would be christian instead of muslim.



So we already know ISIS has come right out and told us , they will be smuggling in terrorists with the refugees.So on the liberal quest of moral superiority should we should we just put our heads down and hope for the best.? Our own intelligence and FBI have come out and stated we cannot vet these people properly. How about using common sense and putting the breaks on and shoring up how to properly vet them so we don't see San Bernadino over and over again.
I'm wondering on the other side of this coin if the liberals would be balking if the majority of the refugees were Christian.
The one thing I do not get about this whole "Go Muslims" thing going on with the left is this?
You do realize that Sharia compliant Muslims treat their women like 3rd class citizens, and that they routinely stone women and gays to death.
They openly believe in multiple wives.
The majority of these muslim refugees are Sharia compliant. Why do you want them here in the first place, their Ideals are so counter to those the left cherishes. I don't get it?


----------



## kmanick (Dec 11, 2015)

metallic1 said:


> Those people hate us, and allways have. If not for their situation, that their own government
> Got them into in the first place, they would be vocal about it, just like they were before their
> World imploded. They don't belong here, them and the isis scum that will undoubtedly leak
> In with them.
> ...



Easy to get banned here... don't tow the party line? .....your days are numbered


----------



## Explorer (Dec 11, 2015)

ncfiala said:


> There is a big difference between these two situations that you fail to mention. The Constitution grants American citizens the right to bear arms but it is completely silent on immigration. No one has a right to come here.



You missed something there in your reasoning. 

Let's say that David Miscavige, of the Church of Scientology, had somehow managed to gain control of the decision process on granting visas, and gave preferential treatment to Scientologists. 

Would that be an un-Constitutional bias towards certain faiths and against others on the part of the government? Yes, it would. 

I hadn't brought that up because it seemed obvious, but since you failed to notice, I apologize for not raising the point explicitly. 

Oh, actually... I did. I was talking about the dichotomy in that kind of thinking, and an embrace of certain things established in the Constitution while rejecting others is emblematic of such thinking. 

If rep were still used, I'd rep for you emphasizing that point, whether deliberately or not.


----------



## celticelk (Dec 11, 2015)

kmanick said:


> Easy to get banned here... don't tow the party line? .....your days are numbered



Trench didn't get banned for his political views, he got banned for being an @sshole. Not an insignificant difference.


----------



## celticelk (Dec 11, 2015)

kmanick said:


> So we already know ISIS has come right out and told us , they will be smuggling in terrorists with the refugees.So on the liberal quest of moral superiority should we should we just put our heads down and hope for the best.?



Of course they'd say that. Even if they didn't plan to do it, they'd say it. You don't think they'd love to scare Western governments into ceasing to accept refugees, so that the people living in ISIS-controlled territory are forced to stay there and either be killed or be pressed into service as cannon fodder/baby factories (delete as applicable)?


----------



## Explorer (Dec 11, 2015)

kmanick said:


> So on the liberal quest of moral superiority should we should we just put our heads down...? How about using common sense and putting the breaks on and shoring up how to properly vet them so we don't see San Bernadino over and over again.
> 
> I'm wondering on the other side of this coin if the liberals would be balking if the majority of the refugees were Christian.



I don't believe I've ever seen a liberal argument for giving any person or group less rights under the law than another based upon their. faith. That should give you a clue as to whether they would continue do to the same in the future. 

However... you do raise an interesting idea. You brought up San Bernadino, but skipped the Christian terrorist in Colorado, as well as other such actions by homegrown American terrorists. Since you are arguing that the left wouldn't be consistent (in spite of a lack of historical support for your assertion), would it be prudent to avoid putting our heads in the sand, and asking potential Christian refugees if they plan on killing gays, or bombing or shooting up women's health clinics? 



kmanick said:


> The one thing I do not get about this whole "Go Muslims" thing going on with the left is this?
> You do realize that Sharia compliant Muslims treat their women like 3rd class citizens, and that they routinely stone women and gays to death.
> They openly believe in multiple wives.



That's kind of a funny thing for you to bring up, given how hard the right has fought for the ability to deny women equal rights, access to reproductive planning, and protection for bigotry against gays. 

In fact, there was a recent event where THREE Republican presidential candidates met with the organizing pastor who has called for gays to be killed. 

If I put the search terms "christian kill gays" into a search engine, how many results would I find of the right being all right with Christian Sharia? (If I'm mentioning it, what are the odds that I checked, and it's a decidedly non-zero number? *laugh*)

When the Republican frontrunner has met with a pastor who accuses Starbucks of flavoring its coffee with the semen of sodomites, and is okay with that, your comments about the left being okay with Sharia law seem to be in ignorance of what is happening on the right. 



kmanick said:


> The majority of these muslim refugees are Sharia compliant. Why do you want them here in the first place, their Ideals are so counter to those the left cherishes. I don't get it?



You're mistaking endorsement of religious zealotry, and even willingness to jettison rule of law in favor of religious values, with adherence to Copnstitutional principles (see my example about religious preference on the part of government, which is un-Constitutional). 

Are you arguing that values like those in the Constitution should be readily abandoned? If that's true, they wouldn't truly be a deeply held principle among those who are so willing, would they?


----------



## celticelk (Dec 11, 2015)

kmanick said:


> I'm wondering on the other side of this coin if the liberals would be balking if the majority of the refugees were Christian.
> The one thing I do not get about this whole "Go Muslims" thing going on with the left is this?
> You do realize that Sharia compliant Muslims treat their women like 3rd class citizens, and that they routinely stone women and gays to death.
> They openly believe in multiple wives.
> The majority of these muslim refugees are Sharia compliant. Why do you want them here in the first place, their Ideals are so counter to those the left cherishes. I don't get it?



Any refugees who enter the United States will have to abide by our laws. They can *believe* whatever they want - and there are plenty of native-born Americans of diverse religions who hold beliefs as bad or worse than those - but they will be severely limited in how they can act on them. In the meantime, they'll be exposed to all of that American culture that we loudly proclaim is the best thing on earth; surely that will convince them that they should change their beliefs, yes?

Would we be balking if the majority of the refugees were Christian? Of course not. That's why we're so offended that you're saying "hang on a minute" because they happen to be Muslim.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Dec 11, 2015)

Why do you even bother, Trench?


----------



## ncfiala (Dec 11, 2015)

Explorer said:


> You missed something there in your reasoning.
> 
> Let's say that David Miscavige, of the Church of Scientology, had somehow managed to gain control of the decision process on granting visas, and gave preferential treatment to Scientologists.
> 
> ...


 
Well you're wrong again. The Constitution protects Americans from discrimination on the part of the US government on the basis of religious affiliations. It doesn't protect the whole damn world. We can refuse entry to anyone for any reason. Even Trump's full-blown ban on muslims proposal is being called constitutional by some experts.


----------



## celticelk (Dec 11, 2015)

ncfiala said:


> Well you're wrong again. The Constitution protects Americans from discrimination on the part of the US government on the basis of religious affiliations. It doesn't protect the whole damn world. We can refuse entry to anyone for any reason. Even Trump's full-blown ban on muslims proposal is being called constitutional by some experts.



If nothing else, the part where he wants to ban Muslim citizens from re-entering the country is definitely unconstitutional.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 11, 2015)

ncfiala said:


> Well you're wrong again. The Constitution protects Americans from discrimination on the part of the US government on the basis of religious affiliations. It doesn't protect the whole damn world. We can refuse entry to anyone for any reason. Even Trump's full-blown ban on muslims proposal is being called constitutional by some experts.



I'm more than positive at this point that you've avoided reading the First Amendment entirely, and quite possibly only know about the Second Amendment because it supports what you personally care about. 

The First Amendment, in the Establishmnt Clause, forbids the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." It not only prohibits an official religion being stablished, but also forbids government actions which unduly favor one religion over another, or even from favoring religion over non-religion, or vice versa. 

If you wish to argue how your view is compatible with where the Constitution outright disagrees with you, I'm interested in hearing your twisted logic. However, if you merely want to state that the Constitution doesn't address this, you're arguing against reality and, further, demonstrating that you're not really interested in learning the facts. 

I gave the hypothetical Scientology example to make it clear how governmental favoritism is forbidden under the Constitution. 

You did bring to my attention that there are some who claim to be experts on the Constitution who have managed to skip learning about the Bill of Rights, similar to you. That just puts them into the same category of reality denial as you. 

Scary. Thanks for the heads up!

----

Assuming you have any interest in facts, do some reading on "establishment clause" from sources which are from general law schools. You'll likely find a different view than the one which is obviously cherrypicked. 

Happy reading!


----------



## metallic1 (Dec 11, 2015)

kmanick said:


> Easy to get banned here... don't tow the party line? .....your days are numbered


Banned for what, the truth? I held back, and showed restraint. 
We all have a right to our own un popular opinion, right?


----------



## Explorer (Dec 11, 2015)

metallic1 said:


> Banned for what, the truth? I held back, and showed restraint.
> We all have a right to our own un popular opinion, right?



Absolutely!

If I recall from the topic correctly, it was pointed out that he was making a claim without any actual support from the source he had given, and he refused to concede or support his claim, instead just arguing that he had. 

In PC&E, the rules against trolling are enforced pretty strictly. 

If he had been able to state support for his assertions, rather than just denying the lack of support repeatedly, then I imagine things might have gone differently. 

I guess that speaks ill for posting, not unpopular opinions, but opinions which are not only contrary to facts, but also reasserted once proven wrong.

(Now *that* has me wondering about the eventual success or failure of the argument against the existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, or the claim that it only specifies non-establishment of religious preference towards citizens as opposed to non-citizens. There is no such citizen-oriented language in it, so it was surprising to see that claimed....)


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 12, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I'm more than positive at this point that you've avoided reading the First Amendment entirely, and quite possibly only know about the Second Amendment because it supports what you personally care about.
> 
> The First Amendment, in the Establishmnt Clause, forbids the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." It not only prohibits an official religion being stablished, but also forbids government actions which unduly favor one religion over another, or even from favoring religion over non-religion, or vice versa.
> 
> ...



Maybe instead of harping on and on in fantasy land while simultaneously, and incredibly, being condescending, you'd LOOK IT UP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/o...im-plan-is-awful-and-constitutional.html?_r=0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Spiro

Fact is, you're not an expert. And experts are divided.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...nflammatory-definitely-unconstitutional-maybe

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...w-muslim-visitor-ban_5666ec0ce4b072e9d1c77979

etc.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 12, 2015)

I was able to find, in the first two sources you listed, the idea that Trump's plan would be ruled un-Constitutional.

Not to be condescending, but did you mean to link to sources which undermined your claim? Because that's generally a bad strategy.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 12, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I was able to find, in the first two sources you listed, the idea that Trump's plan would be ruled un-Constitutional.
> 
> Not to be condescending [cue condescending nonsense], but did you mean to link to sources which undermined your claim? Because that's generally a bad strategy.


What part of "experts are divided" precludes those that argue it'd be unconstitutional? 

You: "the Constitution outright disagrees with [ncfiala]"

Legal scholars: Some say it's constitutional, some say it's unconstitutional, some say maybe. (sources here)

Citing legal scholars debating the issue doesn't "undermine" my claim the simple fact that experts are divided.


You: "[ncfiala] did bring to my attention that there are some who claim to be experts on the Constitution who have managed to skip learning about the Bill of Rights, similar to [ncfiala]. That just puts them into the same category of reality denial as [ncfiala]."

The combination of irony & arrogance there is breathtaking.


----------



## metallic1 (Dec 12, 2015)

asher said:


> Are you talking about the part fourteen years ago where we decided to fly on down there and wreck everyone's ...., make a mess, then leave?


no, im talking about the here and now.
they weren't trying to flood the US and 
half of europe 14 years ago. 
besides...how would that justify letting 
them in anyway?


----------



## kmanick (Dec 12, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Any refugees who enter the United States will have to abide by our laws. They can *believe* whatever they want - and there are plenty of native-born Americans of diverse religions who hold beliefs as bad or worse than those - but they will be severely limited in how they can act on them. In the meantime, they'll be exposed to all of that American culture that we loudly proclaim is the best thing on earth; surely that will convince them that they should change their beliefs, yes?
> 
> Would we be balking if the majority of the refugees were Christian? Of course not. That's why we're so offended that you're saying "hang on a minute" because they happen to be Muslim.



You surely aren't paying attention to what is going on in all of the european countries where the refugees are flowing in. Swedish women are dying their hair black so they don't get raped. Demand for sharia law to take precedence is a daily happening. German teachers are being asaulted by Muslim teenage boys. You want this .... here?
I get the religious right is overboard with their anti abortion anti gay marriage thing . I get it ('m not a republican, I'm an independent, you could call me a Republicrat)
Sharia muslims don't assimilate. I know you'd love to believe that they will, but they don't. Take a walk through down town Dearborn and with your girlfriend and let me know how pleasant it is.
Non Sharia Muslims are wonderful people, I actually work with a few.
They don't get it either.
I love how people always bring up what's on the statue of liberty in this debate.
At the Time we received that, gays were persecuted, women couldn't vote
and blacks had no rights. should we go back to those standards "Is that who we are"? Times are a changing, a moratorium on all immigration would be a good thing, until we can shore up our vetting and get a president in office who actually wants to stop ISIS.
It's a not a right to come to this county it's a privilege.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 12, 2015)

Eh, I live in Europe and have not heard jack about sharia law so far. The Swedish women dyeing their hair is a rumour that has been going around (source: good ol' stormfront) since 2005-6 now. So much for paying attention.

Also: I know many people who volunteer in refugee centers. Surprise surprise, most refugees are at worst moderate Muslims.


----------



## narad (Dec 12, 2015)

kmanick said:


> You surely aren't paying attention to what is going on in all of the european countries where the refugees are flowing in. Swedish women are dying their hair black so they don't get raped.



Uhm, no.

They just like Nightwish 

No, seriously though that's misinformed BS.


----------



## Edika (Dec 12, 2015)

Just to make a note, coming from a country that is accepting the vast majority of refugees in the EU and have a part of our population voicing concerns of terrorists being smuggled with the refugees. However this doesn't make sense for the following reasons:
First of the rate of a successfully crossing is not guaranteed. Many people have drowned while trying to cross the Aegean sea. A terrorist group wanting to smuggle their trained fighters, which are not vast in number as they want you to believe, are not going to risk this. Their cells have already being created by people residing already in the countries they want to target. Either being sent in advance or indoctrinated at those countries. People have even left from western countries to go join ISIL. Buying fake passports for the ones living the Middle East is easier and create less hassle. Don't forget that thousands of refugees await papers for months in Greece. That's time lost for a terrorist organisation sending fighters that way.
Second ISIL is just jumping on that train and is creating terror and mistrust towards the refugees, using it as a diversion for getting their people in through different routes. If all effort and resources are mostly spent on the refugees it's easier for the real terrorists to go through alternate and even legal routes.
That doesn't mean screening shouldn't happen. EU is dragging it's feet and is not helping in the slightest to alleviate the situation and speed up the process. Everybody is just complaining and pointing the finger to one another. Of course like so the terrorists win and divide us, instead of uniting us against them. The situation is severely more complicated and a lot of countries have different interests in the region and their actions reflect that.


----------



## celticelk (Dec 12, 2015)

kmanick said:


> You surely aren't paying attention to what is going on in all of the european countries where the refugees are flowing in. Swedish women are dying their hair black so they don't get raped. Demand for sharia law to take precedence is a daily happening. German teachers are being asaulted by Muslim teenage boys. You want this .... here?
> I get the religious right is overboard with their anti abortion anti gay marriage thing . I get it ('m not a republican, I'm an independent, you could call me a Republicrat)
> Sharia muslims don't assimilate. I know you'd love to believe that they will, but they don't. Take a walk through down town Dearborn and with your girlfriend and let me know how pleasant it is.
> Non Sharia Muslims are wonderful people, I actually work with a few.
> ...



First: the plural of "anecdote" is still not "data," especially with respect to unsourced anecdotes. You can do better than that.

Second: I grew up in SE Michigan, close enough that Dearborn was in my high school athletic conference. Don't BS me about what the Muslim community in Dearborn is like. You'll just embarrass yourself.


----------



## celticelk (Dec 12, 2015)

Edika said:


> Just to make a note, coming from a country that is accepting the vast majority of refugees in the EU and have a part of our population voicing concerns of terrorists being smuggled with the refugees. However this doesn't make sense for the following reasons:
> First of the rate of a successfully crossing is not guaranteed. Many people have drowned while trying to cross the Aegean sea. A terrorist group wanting to smuggle their trained fighters, which are not vast in number as they want you to believe, are not going to risk this. Their cells have already being created by people residing already in the countries they want to target. Either being sent in advance or indoctrinated at those countries. People have even left from western countries to go join ISIL. Buying fake passports for the ones living the Middle East is easier and create less hassle. Don't forget that thousands of refugees await papers for months in Greece. That's time lost for a terrorist organisation sending fighters that way.
> Second ISIL is just jumping on that train and is creating terror and mistrust towards the refugees, using it as a diversion for getting their people in through different routes. If all effort and resources are mostly spent on the refugees it's easier for the real terrorists to go through alternate and even legal routes.
> That doesn't mean screening shouldn't happen. EU is dragging it's feet and is not helping in the slightest to alleviate the situation and speed up the process. Everybody is just complaining and pointing the finger to one another. Of course like so the terrorists win and divide us, instead of uniting us against them. The situation is severely more complicated and a lot of countries have different interests in the region and their actions reflect that.



This. Recruiting cells in target nations is a much bigger bang-for-buck activity, and citizens are under substantially less scrutiny (speaking generally) than foreign nationals, and will remain so unless Western countries decide that living in a totalitarian police state is an acceptable trade off for a marginal increase in security. Some of the right-wing European parties might actually welcome that outcome, but I doubt that any major figures on the American political scene would go that far. (Although given how surprised I've been by the sudden surfacing of the xenophobic radicals in this election cycle, I could always be wrong about that.)


----------



## Explorer (Dec 12, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> What part of "experts are divided" precludes those that argue it'd be unconstitutional?
> 
> ...The combination of irony & arrogance there is breathtaking.



The effort to point out that the first author was an expert, combined with his expert analysis in the article that it would be ruled unconstitutional, just demonstrates that the chosen expert agrees that it is unconstitutional.

It's foolish, as an example of some experts thinking this could be constitutional, to lay out the credentials of someone who thinks it is not constitutional. An analysis from a Constitutional expert who indicates that it would prevail as constitutional would be a better source, and if there is a true division, such should be easy to come by, no?

It's like the student in Kung Pow who was deliberately taught wrong: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor!"


----------



## Explorer (Dec 12, 2015)

kmanick said:


> Swedish women are dying their hair black so they don't get raped. Demand for sharia law to take precedence is a daily happening.
> 
> ...I get the religious right is overboard with their anti abortion anti gay marriage thing . I get it ('m not a republican, I'm an independent, you could call me a Republicrat)
> 
> Sharia muslims don't assimilate. I know you'd love to believe that they will, but they don't.



First off, even Fox News has had to issue retractions for the statements about Sharia law in Europe, and they routinely let false stories stand.

I also like that you're willing to assert why Swedish women might dye their hair, and wonder if you will be retracting (or even apologizing for) that false narrative you gave. If you do, thanks for letting a Swede correct you for your factual error. And if you don't, don't you think that will damage the trust people have in your assertions?

You also seem to unaware of how right-wing Christian evangelicals in the US have been claiming to be a culture apart, and how they reject the culture at large. Your assertions about how a culture held apart from the main culture, and which wants to impose its religious rules as law in the US, fit to a T. In fact, do you think a simple search would find any major Republican presidential candidates who have made statements about what religious beliefs are necessary to be President, in spite of such requirements being unconstitutional?


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 12, 2015)

Explorer said:


> The effort to point out that the first author was an expert, combined with his expert analysis in the article that it would be ruled unconstitutional, just demonstrates that the chosen expert agrees that it is unconstitutional.
> 
> It's foolish, as an example of some experts thinking this could be constitutional, to lay out the credentials of someone who thinks it is not constitutional. An analysis from a Constitutional expert who indicates that it would prevail as constitutional would be a better source, and if there is a true division, such should be easy to come by, no?
> 
> It's like the student in Kung Pow who was deliberately taught wrong: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor!"



What's "foolish" is you replying to me without reading what I wrote. Again.  "Experts are divided" literally means that some of them say temporarily banning Muslim immigrants would be constitutional while others say it wouldn't. I don't need you to tell me that there are some experts who think it'd be unconstitutional.  What's even more foolish is you pretending that the first author (Peter Spiro) argued it'd be unconstitutional when the friggin TITLE of his piece is "Trump&#8217;s Anti-Muslim Plan Is Awful. And Constitutional."   (The first scholars mentioned in the NPR article also argued it'd be constitutional, and ALL scholars cited in the Huff Post article argued it'd be constitutional.)

The point is that you have the nerve to take on an authoritative, condescending tone and not only attack another member, but attack LEGAL SCHOLARS who disagree with you and dismiss them out of hand without even bothering to look them up.



Explorer said:


> ...I'm interested in hearing your twisted logic.
> 
> ...you're arguing against reality
> 
> ...



You've obviously mastered the art of attacking people without explicitly calling them names so you can dodge a ban. Hopefully the mods see through it. You're way outta line.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 12, 2015)

I did read the various links provided, and made comments based on those links.

I do, in fact, speak directly about when there is a demonstrated fact (like proving someone's expertise before usng them as a source which undercuts one's own case) and ghen someone claiming the opposite (that person's analysis and expertise support me).

In this case, it's definitely my opinion that experts are not divided, but that there are only those contrarians on the extreme right who think this plan would prevail on Constitutional grounds. I think it's the same as watchng those on the right who keep thinking that their "religious freedom" argument is enough to impose their particular religious views upon whether someone of a differnt faith can, or cannot, marry.

Noting a failure in logic, or a foolish mistake, is different from a personal attack, at least in the minds of most. Yes, there are those who apparently want safe spaces where they are immune from not just attack, but even unpleasant ideas and even criticism. However, criticism is different from a personal attack. 

If you think the basis of my criticisms (in this case, my assertions that it is foolish to rely on sources which aren't supporting one's argument) from which other conclusions would be derived (one would need twisted logic to claim support from a source which actually doesn't do so) are wrong, then go after that.

As always, whenever you think a comment is a personal attack, be sure to report it, even if it's me. The mods can't be everywhere, and are grateful for the assist.

----

Just as a helpful touchstone on this subject, i thought I remembered you having the same ideas on the difference between personal attacks and pointing out flaws in arguments as me. Her's an example of you agreeing, and putting it into action.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/politics-current-events/282387-casual-harassment-10.html

"Social retard," "troll," and even an accusation of a "bald-faced lie." 

Well... you do go a bit beyond what you are accusing me of.

----

And now, back to topic!


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 12, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I did read the various links provided, and made comments based on those links.
> 
> I do, in fact, speak directly about when there is a demonstrated fact (like proving someone's expertise before usng them as a source which undercuts one's own case) and ghen someone claiming the opposite (that person's analysis and expertise support me).
> 
> ...



That's THREE times you pretend the sources I spoon-fed you "undercut" some "claim/case/argument" I never made. "Experts are divided" was my claim. It's not even a claim, it's just fact. But instead of mustering the humility to acknowledge the scholarly debate on the issue, you double down on your "opinion" flagrantly false ad hominem to blow off legal scholars who disagree with you. Peter Spiro, Akhil Amar, Michael Dorf, Gabriela Rivera, Natsu Saito, Stephen Legomsky, etc. are not "contrarians on the extreme right." Nor are they even remotely akin to the "religious right imposing their views" on others. So your "opinion," "criticism," accusations of "twisted logic" "reality denial" "not interested in learning" etc. are in fact cynically cloaked personal attacks. Indeed you _are_ "trolling" & telling "bald-faced lies."  At least tedtan admitted he got caught at one point in that other thread. Nice try there. And I did report you, btw.

And now, back on topic for real...

US Intel: ISIS May Have Passport Printing Machine, Blank Passports - ABC News


----------



## Mprinsje (Dec 13, 2015)

kmanick said:


> You surely aren't paying attention to what is going on in all of the european countries where the refugees are flowing in. Swedish women are dying their hair black so they don't get raped. Demand for sharia law to take precedence is a daily happening. German teachers are being asaulted by Muslim teenage boys. You want this .... here?



I might not be german or swedish but my country is also letting in many muslim refugees and i have never heard someone seriously demand sharia law. Some people might think sharia is a good thing, but they are such a small minority that nobody even thinks of taking that seriously. I bet you that there are some muslims in the US who think sharia should be implemented, it's not unique to Europe. And the whole hair-dye thing is the most blatant piece of BS i've ever read.


----------



## The Reverend (Dec 13, 2015)

Explorer is on one in this thread, damn. 

I feel really powerless when it comes to the issue of Syrian refugees, because where I live and work the prevailing attitude is that Muslims _at best_ should be denied entrance and/or deported, and killed at worst. It's such a common occurrence that I'd spend a lot of time and burn a lot of bridges trying to defend them. 

It really just boggles me that a nation of immigrants can't see that we're just spinning the same circles here. There's very little to separate the arguments against Syrian immigration from the arguments against Jews or the Irish back in the day. I had a friend of mine point to Japanese internment camps as a GOOD EXAMPLE of how to handle the issue, and it completely gutted me. 

I support the influx of Syrian refugees. If anything, American culture tends to homogenize and de-emphasize religiosity over time. I know it often doesn't feel like it, but compared to the America of the past, we are well on our way to being a pretty damn secular country.


----------



## 1b4n3z (Dec 14, 2015)

Things are looking pretty grim on this side of the pond as well I'd say, and getting worse still. We're, yet slowly, but at ever faster pace, re-establishing 30's politics in the EU and the decline of rational thought is mind numbing. Our house isn't even completed yet and we haven't stepped inside once, and I'm already seriously considering selling it and moving the hell out of here before it's too late. And this is absolutely not because of poor refugees showing up, but instead because of the co-occurrence of far right nationalism and the impossibility of our economic conditions to improve without severing the euro system. It'll be a spectacle I'd rather watch somewhere far away


----------



## Explorer (Dec 14, 2015)

The arguments are indeed so similar, it's frightening.

Foreigners who are out to destroy a country from within, slogans about returning the country to greatness, even leaders who can easily justify violence against a citizen who is only speaking... couple that with anti-intellectualism, populist "solutions" which aren't well thought out, and an appeal to emotion rather than reason, and you have...

Hmmm. Does that refer to a current presidential campaign, or to the Nazis? Tell me which is ruled out, by the terms I spelled out not being applicable, before just giving me a knee-jerk reaction.

And if you can't rule one out, but think that one or the other still doesn't go too far in your opinion, keep in mind that you'll be signing on to eliminating the Constitution and the first Amendment right of free speech when you handwave away justifying beating someone for protected speech.

----

Anyone here ever read of the Wave movement experiment in a California high school, where the students couldn't understand how regular people could join a fascist movement willingly, and a teacher decided to show them how the students weren't immune? There have been several movies based on what happened at the school. It's fascinating and terrifying at the same time.


----------



## StevenC (Dec 14, 2015)

Come on, Explorer, you're better than Godwin's Law.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Dec 14, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> You've obviously mastered the art of attacking people without explicitly calling them names so you can dodge a ban. Hopefully the mods see through it. You're way outta line.



-Person who has been banned in the past for that exact thing.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 14, 2015)

StevenC said:


> Come on, Explorer, you're better than Godwin's Law.



Godwin's Law doesn't apply to conversations wherein one is actually discussing mainstays of the Nazi regime, or of the regime's rise to power. If my parallels are indeed hyperbolic and not representative of Trump's words and actions, then you'd indeed be correct in pointing out how Trump never engaged in such, and that my statements were unfounded. 

I'll add two more parallels to either easily shoot down if false, or to add to the list of things which are relevant and scary and *true.*

Accusations of communism.

Not being willing to rule out special tracking and/or required registration of a religious group of citizens. 

Here's a ohttps://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-has-big-plans-1303117537878070.html which has both points.

Godwin's Law is about accusations like, "Gays and women are like Hitler for wanting equal rights," or "You're being like Hitler for enforcing the rules."

Do you truly think Godwin's Law is about discussions about actual points of view and actions which parallel ones embraced by the Nazis?

I'm happy if someone were to show that news sources which currently support the examples I gave were merely inventions, and retractions issued. 

"Oh, Explorer, Trump never justified someone getting physically beaten for using their free speech rights! And he clearly rejected registration of citizens of a particular religion!"

See, those would be assertions which could support the conclusion that I was just pulling the accusation of those parallels out of nowhere. 

If I was instead talking about, say, Bill Gates, and I was to make the claim of those parallels between Gates and the Nazis, it would be relatively easy to dismiss that claim because Gates hasn't spoken publicly about any of those things. *That* would be a correct application of Godwin's Law. 

I'm happy to discuss this further, but there'd have to be some showing that the parallels I noted didn't really happen, as opposed to saying that my noting those parallels is factually correct but outré.


----------



## eaeolian (Dec 14, 2015)

...and this one's gone far enough.


----------

