**** Elections thread *****

[MadMojoMonkey]

My position is: what's your position on this issue, wuf?
I'm not debating you, because if anything, I agree with the fact that we should let people who have the actual intel make the decisions. I'm just curious why you seem so certain that they're right on this one.

What do you want to change my position to, wuf?
We clearly agree on your point of "The sad part is that the majority are legit refugees of a sort."

You will always confuse me.

[wufwugy]

My position is: what's your position on this issue, wuf?
I'm not debating you, because if anything, I agree with the fact that we should let people who have the actual intel make the decisions. I'm just curious why you seem so certain that they're right on this one.

Notice how in order to attack immigration restrictions from these countries, the issue has to be framed as having nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. The restrictions are based on Islamic terrorism.

Since a side point was brought up about economic productivity, the side point was made that these countries also export less productive people on average.

[Poopadoop]

Notice how in order to attack immigration restrictions from these countries, the issue has to be framed as having nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. The restrictions are based on Islamic terrorism.

Ya, except they're not really based on that are they? No national of the 7 banned countries has ever committed an act of terrorism on US soil.

[wufwugy]

Ya, except they're not really based on that are they? No national of the 7 banned countries has ever committed an act of terrorism on US soil.

Then argue that the policy is misguided. The policy is still based on Islamic terrorism.

Explanations can be given for the results you stated existing along with a higher probability of terrorism. But once that's where the debate goes, it's about Islamic terrorism, which is what those in power who do not like the policy wants it to not be about.

[CoccoBill]

Then argue that the policy is misguided. The policy is still based on Islamic terrorism.

Explanations can be given for the results you stated existing along with a higher probability of terrorism. But once that's where the debate goes, it's about Islamic terrorism, which is what those in power who do not like the policy wants it to not be about.

So which do you think it is, they have no idea what they're doing or it's not about muslim terrorism? I don't see an option c) here either.

[wufwugy]

So which do you think it is, they have no idea what they're doing or it's not about muslim terrorism? I don't see an option c) here either.

If we're looking at where future terrorism is likely to come from, these places are among the most likely. Non-US terrorism, which is where there is way way way more terrorism, comes from these places. MMM just finished telling me that Islamic terrorists kill their own people the most. Yeah, they do. Where do they do it? Places like Syria.

We've also had big restrictions with these places already. Less so with Saudi Arabia. The former has been a strength and the latter has been a weakness.

[Poopadoop]

The shit-clock is ticking on those terrorshits.

[CoccoBill]

If we're looking at where future terrorism is likely to come from, these places are among the most likely. Non-US terrorism, which is where there is way way way more terrorism, comes from these places.

Link? Sounds incredible that all the countries that HAVE attacked american citizens in the past are no threat whatsoever, making it a sound choice not to ban them.

I'm unimpressed by your quantity and quality of data and logic presented.

[MadMojoMonkey]

MMM just finished telling me that Islamic terrorists kill their own people the most.

Huh? I mean... I wouldn't at all be surprised if that's true, but I have no data to directly suggest such, and I don't recall saying it (but was sick last week, so probably said a lot of stuff I don't remember), and I quickly scanned my posts on this page and I didn't say it here.

My point is: IF I said that, it was not researched. Grain of salt.

[Poopadoop]

Then argue that the policy is misguided. The policy is still based on Islamic terrorism.

Explanations can be given for the results you stated existing along with a higher probability of terrorism. But once that's where the debate goes, it's about Islamic terrorism, which is what those in power who do not like the policy wants it to not be about.

Uh, this makes no sense at all.