You're talking about something very different than I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Printable View
You're talking about something very different than I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're choosing your words to include all Islamic terrorists under one banner, and to blame the Islamic scripture as the cause.
You're choosing your words to paint a picture where only non-Muslims are fighting these militants.
You're choosing your words to vilify people who are on your side.
If I'm talking about something different, it's only due to your poorly chosen words.
I believe you know this, and continue to choose those words. Your choice to add insult and ignorance to your position is not my fault.
I don't think you're entirely wrong here. But you're a long way from entirely right. I mean, ISIS didn't just sit around a bonfire one night brainstorming ideas to come up with this Caliphate. The notion of a world with one race, practicing one religion, under one set of laws, with no fucking compromises, is most definitely called out in Islamic scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
There are more than a few muslim-majority countries, including US allies, where 25%, 35%, even 50+% of the population believes that attacking civilian targets to influence political action is justified. Why do you think so many of them practice polygamy? Is it because they love little kids? No, their scripture tells them to reproduce more than the infidels with the goal of driving them to extinction, leaving only muslims. An attack doesn't necessarily require an explosion. The law-abiding, western-styled, peacefully living arab guy with 5 wives and 14 kids, in my opinion, is just as guilty of Jihad as a soldier with a gun.
I related a story in a post a while back about a priest who gave one ten minute sermon and got a whole town full of catholics to shut the fuck up about abortion for a few months. Why is it that a religion with 1.6 billion members can't keep itself from sprouting large branches of extremism?
There are billions of christians in the world too. Only a very small handful have ever shot up an abortion clinic. Christianity keeps its message consistent worldwide. Don't friggen kill people. Where is the voice of Islam? What are the peace-loving Muslims doing to maintain unity within their religion?
I recall people being outraged at that lady who held the 'draw muhammed' art contest. They were outraged because of the offense to Muslims. Though more specifically, I think the backlash was motivated considerably by fear of Muslim reprisal. We KNOW it pisses them off, and we know when they're pissed off, they kill people. So don't piss them off.
Yet I doubt very much they bothered to beef up security at the Nahem gallery after they displayed "Piss Christ"
See the difference?
I have claimed that Islamism is Islamism. This was response to the notion that Islamism is emergent from separatism. While some terrorism in the ME can be attributed to separatism and the like, most is Islamist. The idea that the West is causing the problems is such a dangerous idea because it downplays the root of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Confirmation bias. I don't talk about generic Muslims much, and those who have suffered the most from ME terrorism and Islamists are Muslims.Quote:
You're choosing your words to paint a picture where only non-Muslims are fighting these militants.
You're choosing your words to vilify people who are on your side.
Islamists hate non-Islamist Muslims even more than Christian gays that they hog-tie and launch off buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yeah, James "A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION I GOT DIRT ON HILLARY OH SHIT TURNS OUT I AINT GOT SHIT ON HILLARY" Mother-fucking Comey. Pardon me if I don't give a shit about what he says or has said, because he has demonstrated to have an agenda. Oh lookee, he's gonna keep his job as FBI director under Trump. How fortunate for him.
And that "an isis fighter will slip through the cracks" rhetoric is very difficult for it to happen. He or she will have to not engage in any kind of terror activities for years in order to be vetted. Difficult for a terrorist to do. We are talking Manchurian candidate levels of difficulty here. Bucky from captain America for the youngins.
While it's possible, the degree of difficulty is quite up there. Also, after they are in, your buddy over at FBI seems to be particularly interested in mass surveillance, As FBI only operates within US borders, you get what that means.
Seems much easier to radicalize one who is already in position. Just a thought.
Your position is tinfoilhatty. Really close to paranoia actually.
PS How are the stories of people who actually went through the vetting process at hand “lots of irrelevant anecdotes”? I did not post about that time I went to Baskin’ Robbins’ now did I?
We shouldn't give credence to the idea that separatism and similar types of violence have a marked role in the ME. So, my bad.
Much of the ME was westernizing and loving it. The Islamists loathed it yet they were weakened because the pull of western prosperity was so enticing. The dueling between US and Russia opened the door for the Islamists to put the burkas and chains back on all the westernized women. It was never about separatism so much as it was about the Islamists' on par with Nazism ideology.
It should be noted that deeply fundamentalist regimes naturally arise out of war. US and Russia proxy war in Afghanistan was a big problem that opened the door for the oppressive forces it has today.
His comments on this issue came in late 2015, when Ann Coulter was the only one in the world who thought Trump had half a chance. And whatever he said during the election was his duty. At worst, it was a catch 22. If he kept his mouth shut, he could still be guilty of violating the Hatch act. And besides...it's not just comey who says this about our vetting process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Furthermore, Comey's complaint is a lack of a process. If there was a process, he could be easily proven wrong. It's been over a year since he said that, and no one has refuted it, except lib-tards on twitter who say "I worked for such and such, so I saw what happened to people, so now I'm an expert, nyahhh"
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I dont' care that it's very difficult. I want it to be impossible. And we're not just talking about ISIS fighters. Look at the situation in sweden. They let in common criminals with their refugees, now it's rape-city.
Dude....are you even listening to the other side of the argument? Or are you just hell-bent on believing that you know everything there is to know about our vetting procedures and how to circumvent it. Leaders of national intelligence totally disagree with what you're saying here. Why are you insisting that it's true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I'll repeat it for you again. It is entirely possible for a person to have contact with terrorist operatives, visit terrorist facilities, obtain training, and still be totally invisible to US intelligence. It's not like we have eyes and ears all over Raqqa. It's possible for someone to seek refuge that we've never seen before. Just because we haven't seen him before, doesn't mean he's full of good intentions.
Pretty sure I've read/heard that ISIS's own publications and propaganda are suggesting that people from the Middle east try and get to the west via refugee programs. That demands a response. Just because one front is 'easier' doesn't mean that ISIS won't try to fight us on both. Seems much easier for ISIS to stop being fudge-knots and act like civilized people. They don't seem interested in that though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Also, going back to your previous point about a manchurian candidate. If it's so easy for ISIS to radicalize someone already in America.....how easy would it be for them to radicalize someone in Mosul, or Fallujah, or Damascus? Possibly someone who's never done a thing to make a blip on the US radar?
Really? You need a tinfoil hat to believe the sworn statements from the leaders of America's national intelligence agencies? Trusting the credibility of those people is paranoid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Because it doesn't explain how the US was able to make a determination on their admittance or not. We're only hearing one side of the story. It doesn't tell us what information we're using, or what intelligence we're gathering in order to execute the vetting process. Granted, that information should be secret for security reasons, so I understand why it's not in the article. But we should still hear both sides of the story. Right now, the other side comes in the form of national intelligence officials saying "what we have isn't good enough"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Would have been more relevant. Which flavor you get?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe.
I've also seen a ton of photos of refugee masses made up of mostly robust, well-fed men, with very few women and children.
The high quantity of admitted refugees to European countries that do not work and are on welfare and commit violent crime and turn their regions into ghettos is staggering.
These "refugees" are a lie.
The sad part is that the majority are legit refugees of a sort.
Trump is fixing the problem with safe zones. They will have a combined effect of providing for real refugees what they need and starving ISIS.
Isn't "safe zone" just an unofficial name for "no-fly zone"? Because that causes many more problems than it solves.
No, they're not referring to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Details are not out on exactly how they will be created and maintained, but so far Saudi Arabia is on board. The idea is that a handful of key geographic areas will be militarily defended by a coalition that ISIS can't defeat. All people fleeing ISIS will be welcomed into them. It is likely there will be a big campaign to get as many women into these safe zones as possible. ISIS would then have virtually no ability to recruit -- because their spoils are the women -- and defections would skyrocket.
So you're against gun ownership, now?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Or what, you think the appropriate punishment for all crimes is life in prison or capital punishment?
Americans who have been photographed with guns and have been in gangs and imprisoned eventually get out of prison and are let back directly into the USA.
They can swear that they are not reformed and that they will commit more crimes and we still let them out of prison because their sentence for the crimes they were caught committing has been served.
This is called American justice.
You against that, too?
What are you saying? That you should be the arbiter of who has which needs?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Those refugees are criminals, and those are 2 separate issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I thought Saudi Arabia was a hotbed of evil and iniquity to you? How is having them on board a plus to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Clearly what I say doesn't matter.
@wuf:
No judicial system is perfect. Some innocents will be wrongfully punished. Some guilty will be wrongfully set free.
How shall we handle our imperfections?
How many innocent Americans should be imprisoned to prevent any guilty Americans from eluding the system?
How many guilty Americans should be acceptably allowed to be free, so that we minimize the imprisonment of innocents?
Where do you strike balance? Because assuming that you can have a perfect judicial system is fantasy.
***
Personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of letting a few criminals be free than risk depriving innocents of their rights.
But then, I'm no coward who thinks it's the gov't's job to coddle me with safety.
Whatever Ben Franklin meant, I'm not interested in trading my essential liberties to purchase a bit of security. I'm certainly not interested in trading anyone else's essential liberties on my behalf.
I'm interested in understanding. If you ignore my honest attempts to understand you, then don't pretend it's on me for not paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think it's kinda like when you want to open a legit business, but still need the informal permission of the local Mafia boss.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
He's still a vile criminal, but it's still best to avoid rubbing him the wrong way.
What I said doesn't suggest that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What I said doesn't suggest that.Quote:
Or what, you think the appropriate punishment for all crimes is life in prison or capital punishment?
Derived from premise my words didn't suggest.Quote:
Americans who have been photographed with guns and have been in gangs and imprisoned eventually get out of prison and are let back directly into the USA.
They can swear that they are not reformed and that they will commit more crimes and we still let them out of prison because their sentence for the crimes they were caught committing has been served.
This is called American justice.
You against that, too?
Not suggested by what I said.Quote:
What are you saying? That you should be the arbiter of who has which needs?
Importing criminals is not a separate issue from importing criminals.Quote:
Those refugees are criminals, and those are 2 separate issues.
Because reality.Quote:
I thought Saudi Arabia was a hotbed of evil and iniquity to you? How is having them on board a plus to you?
I'm not sure why this is directed at me. How is this related to trying to import fewer terrorists?Quote:
@wuf:
No judicial system is perfect. Some innocents will be wrongfully punished. Some guilty will be wrongfully set free.
How shall we handle our imperfections?
How many innocent Americans should be imprisoned to prevent any guilty Americans from eluding the system?
How many guilty Americans should be acceptably allowed to be free, so that we minimize the imprisonment of innocents?
Where do you strike balance? Because assuming that you can have a perfect judicial system is fantasy.
***
Personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of letting a few criminals be free than risk depriving innocents of their rights.
But then, I'm no coward who thinks it's the gov't's job to coddle me with safety.
Whatever Ben Franklin meant, I'm not interested in trading my essential liberties to purchase a bit of security. I'm certainly not interested in trading anyone else's essential liberties on my behalf.
Then what is your point with this observation?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
"I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe."
I thought you were saying this is bad. If you were, in fact, saying this is exactly appropriate, then I absolutely misunderstood you.
If you're saying it's bad, then based on what?
What is your actual premise, I mean.
Then what do you mean with this observation?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
"I've also seen a ton of photos of refugee masses made up of mostly robust, well-fed men, with very few women and children."
I can't find any motivation to say this if not to suggest that this is a problem.
If you're suggesting that it's a problem, then upon what basis do you posit such?
Of course not.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Making a 1:1 equation of "refugee" to "criminal" is your mistake, here.
Depriving the society of the intelligence, innovation and hard work of non-criminal immigrants is the kind of economic problem I'd expect you to put more weight on than this.
Don't cop out.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Which aspect(s) of reality?
Because you're willing to stop all refugee immigration to nullify some of their bad behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
"How many innocents is acceptable to punish in the name of the guilty?" seems a core question to elucidate where you're coming from.
Here I'll try again:
The probability of those people being real refugees is very, very low. The probability of them being the enemy is very high.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmm
Taking measures to minimize importation of enemies isn't an endorsement of what the enemies do to non-enemies.Quote:
Or what, you think the appropriate punishment for all crimes is life in prison or capital punishment?
Refugees typically make up women and children, not well-fed men.Quote:
What are you saying? That you should be the arbiter of who has which needs?
Even bad people can do the right thing at times. As bad as Saudi Arabia is, defeating ISIS will take allying with SA.Quote:
I thought Saudi Arabia was a hotbed of evil and iniquity to you? How is having them on board a plus to you?
Fantastic point. It's not what's going on in the "refugee" situation, however. The problems brought with them are far higher than normal. They include everything from economic drain to terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Entry to the US is a privilege. US residents being defended from enemies is a right. Smart immigration policy is smart. Extreme vetting and temporary banning until problems can be fixed is the least that can be done to ensure the outcomes are the best.Quote:
Because you're willing to stop all refugee immigration to nullify some of their bad behavior.
"How many innocents is acceptable to punish in the name of the guilty?" seems a core question to elucidate where you're coming from.
TYQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
A) You're guessing, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
B) Even if you're right, so what?
(see above point about American justice and tell me how this doesn't apply, here.)
What about taking measures to maximize importation of allies?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Where do you strike a balance?
A) Source, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
W/o data to back this up, you are only supporting the impression that you are claiming the ability to identify an innocent from a guilty based on their age and gender.
B) Are you saying your position on immigration reform that we should only admit women and children?
I feel confident that I still don't see where you're coming from on this one.
Cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Why doesn't this temper your stance on the prior points.
This is a myopic POV for an economist to take, though, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Of course when impoverished, but well meaning and hard-working people need help there is an immediate and short-term economic drain. That's what it means to need help.
However, that help is short-lived and the immediate investment will yield solid ROI for decades if not generations, yeah?
Smart immigration needs to do both:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Maximize the number of innocent and productive immigrants
Minimize the number of criminal and non-productive immigrants
Harping on one side to the ignorance of the other is bad economic policy.
Of all the pro-immigration arguments, this one seems to be the least compelling to me. Firstly, for every brain surgeon that comes here, we have many times that many people who come here and become a burden. Secondly, it doesn't follow logic that disallowing these people would "deprive" us of anything. Last I heard, unemployment, and it's more sinister cousin under-employment are rampant among recent college graduates. Seems like if there is a need for educated economic contributors....we should have plenty of our own.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Source, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm not sure that's the same subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
In my work experience (albeit limited) American's tend to over-value their own skillset and expect more money for performing the same tasks as an equally educated 1st generation immigrant. The mere opportunity to work w/o fear of random violence which could well come from the gov't is a blessing they tend to not forget, whereas it's all Americans have even known, so we don't understand the value.
I accept that's a weak and anecdotal argument, though. I can't be bothered to spend 30 minutes trying to figure out what to search for to see if there's any remotely credible study done on this. If anyone knows of any, let me know. I'll recant my position in a second if I'm wrong about it.
Is it not common knowledge that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in this country? Are they not working in jobs that do not pay taxes? Are they not sending their kids to american schools? Are they not seeking free, cheap, or subsidized healthcare....or other entitlements?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What value does your average syrian refugee bring to the table? Half of them are women, so you know they are totally uneducated and probably can't even drive. How about a command of the english language?
C'mon man, you can't tell me that the majority of people who come to America are coming to contribute when it's sooooo easy for them to exploit.
I doubt the number is common knowledge, but it's common knowledge that there are illegal immigrants, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Let's not nitpick the number.
Excellent questions. I don't know the answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I suspect that even in your worst case scenario, I'd be OK with the numbers. I think that by the letter of the law, they're breaking the law, but by the spirit of the law, they are honorable, hard working people who want educated kids with skills that provide them opportunities. Sounds like the makings of a healthy, American family. Let's not pick nits about inconsequential history. They're here, they're not breaking laws, they're working jobs and sending their kids to school. IF they're not paying income tax, they're still paying sales tax and cannot claim any gov't benefits, so probably a net gain on taxes.
Seeking entitlements is the most American thing I can think of.
Dunno. Lets appropriately vet some and let them in and see.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You're joking, right? Like, since they aren't educated, what? They are uneducatable? Since they can't drive, they can't learn to drive?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Plenty of Americans don't speak English. This is irrelevant.
C'mon man, you can't tell me the majority of Americans are any different.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Alright, let's not get off the rails here. I'm not beating the "they're breaking the law" drum too hard. My original point, is that among these *ahem* 'hard working people', there are more lawnmowers than brain surgeons. I'm just asking, is that something America really needs? Would we really be 'deprived' without that? And when you move away from the extreme poles of examples, I think America has generation of eager accountants, lawyers, electricians, and whatever else ready to fill any open position.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm just not buying that "immigrants are part of the fabric of america" nonsense.
Unfortunately, that's a common perception. though if I could sum up the 2016 election I'd say "the people paying the bills in this country want a fucking discount". I think your'e going to see more money flow to the middle class over the next 4 to 8 years. That means there's less for poor people. They're gonna have to get jobs too.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well, if we're talking about refugees, we're talking about someone who wouldn't otherwise come to America. If they had the means, motivation, and something to offer, they would come as immigrants. Refugees are only on the move because they are forced. If they had skills that we really needed here....we'd have gone over there and got them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Who pays to educate them?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Are those people paying the bills in this country, or collecting a check?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Just because you piss on your own toilet seat doesn't mean you'd like it if I came over and did the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I can't be bothered to search either. But....Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If it was a regular practice for American businesses to pay immigrants less than natives....how long do you think it would take for someone to cry 'racism'.
It's a reason to tighten immigration standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Great idea. Tightening immigration standards from regions and demos that are less prone to being allies does that.Quote:
What about taking measures to maximize importation of allies?
Women and children on the lifeboat first. That such a large proportion of these "refugees" being able-bodied men (one source I saw a while back was that it is a very sizable majority) tells us that something is not right.Quote:
A) Source, please.
W/o data to back this up, you are only supporting the impression that you are claiming the ability to identify an innocent from a guilty based on their age and gender.
B) Are you saying your position on immigration reform that we should only admit women and children?
I feel confident that I still don't see where you're coming from on this one.
Working with bad elements you're stuck with doesn't mean it's a good idea to invite bad elements you're not stuck with.Quote:
Cool.
Why doesn't this temper your stance on the prior points.
The countries listed are dreadful when it comes to immigrating productivity. The drain is long-term.Quote:
This is a myopic POV for an economist to take, though, right?
Of course when impoverished, but well meaning and hard-working people need help there is an immediate and short-term economic drain. That's what it means to need help.
However, that help is short-lived and the immediate investment will yield solid ROI for decades if not generations, yeah?
That's in part what this is all about. The countries on the list on average provide awful immigrants relative to other countries. It would be smart to have a very easy immigration policy from, say, Poland, while a very tight immigration policy on Somalia. We should probably be importing like 20x the amount of Polish than Somalis.Quote:
Smart immigration needs to do both:
Maximize the number of innocent and productive immigrants
Minimize the number of criminal and non-productive immigrants
I'm gonna back him up on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Markets are fundamentally about matching up resources in order to create new resources that could not be created without the matching. A good way of seeing this is in financial markets, which exist for the purpose of matching up people with investment capital (but not labor or intellectual capital) with people who have labor or investment capital (but not investment capital) in order to produce a new good or service. At the foundation of any type of market is the same principle.
When it comes to immigration, something like a really smart kid born in the Congo would be far more productive if he could find his way to Harvard than if he stayed in the Congo, and the entire world, particularly the US (where Harvard is) would benefit from this.
However, there is great difficulty in actually getting this right. A whole bunch of our immigration policy goes against this principle, and it needs to be fixed. The ways to fix it include rigorously screening for those who are most likely to adopt the American ethic, getting rid of welfare, and probably only importing immigrants that are more productive than average or if there is a demonstrated need. Each one of these elements is abused quite a bit these days.
Different people have different skills. There's always more unskilled labor than skilled labor.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The evidence that one person is employing another person is enough for me to gather that it is something that they value and/or need. America needs honest people who freely exchange their services for dollars.
These are honest people doing business and it doesn't seem fair to stop them.
I'm guessing not all those eager workers want to mow their own lawns, or clean the work toilets, etc.
I'm not arguing for open borders, just giving refugees the benefit of the doubt. Some of them will be capable electricians, doctors, or teachers. Communities of people have variety.
There's a thriving Bosnian community in St Louis, from the genocide that was Milosovich (sp?) was driving about a decade ago. It's not like America doesn't know how to take in refugees. They showed up to work on time, worked hard, and struggled to learn the language and prove that they weren't here to be slackers. They wanted their pride back.
Are some of them slackers? Sure. Some of my family are slackers. Yours? Slackers happen. They're not the majority for communities, though.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
[American History]
What?
Unemployment is almost never due to people who can work choosing to not work. The statistics say it all. There is a tiny percentage of people who are habitually on and off of unemployment benefits, but on the whole it's a one and done thing. I did it myself, and you know what? It slapped me in the face to get a degree in physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Feeling entitled to pursue your career and raise your family is an American thing.
... with Liberty and Justice for all.
Dude. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
They are entire communities which have been driven from everything familiar to them by atrocities you and I have the luxury of only having seen on TV.
This is fair a fair question. I believe it's negotiated between the feds and the state/city which accepts the influx.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But IDK.
Yes, it's tax dollars, but it's a good investment. You bring in tax payers.
Both, I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm also sure that the vast majority are not here illegally, and are paying their taxes and bills as the American citizens they are.
eww.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
People have pride. That's an everyone thing. People, on the whole, take pride in not being slacking losers.
I mean... there are good reasons, but none of yours are them is what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You're making wild guesses and generalizations and asserting things which you have no research or authority to back.
No, not tightening standards. Remember, innocent until proven guilty is our thing, here.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Having a robust system that ensures the same standards from all sources is better.
Sounds like you imposing your own narrative onto a story you know very little about.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You said, "I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe."
Could you set a lower bar for criminalizing a group of people?
I mean... that sounds like someone somewhere didn't do their job, to be sure. But you seem to be suggesting this is the norm, which, based on, "I've seen multiple photos" seems pretty trigger-happy on the "save me daddy guvm't from these bad guys! I'll pay all the taxes!" cry.
Fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Source, or what are even talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What agency tracks "immigrating productivity?" What are their evaluation criteria? Based on what sample size and time period?
Provide aweful immigrants relative to other coutnries? How can this be demonstrated?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
How is that not lazy hatin'?
FYP.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
A perfectly fair immigration policy with equal standards for all applicants will do exactly this, if your above comments are anything more than lazy hatin', I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Increased probability of terrorism and decreased probability of productivity are very great reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Which is what this is about. To ensure safety, quality, and other attributes, it is a good idea to use extreme scrutiny for immigration from places like Somalia and not so extreme scrutiny from places like Poland.Quote:
Having a robust system that ensures the same standards from all sources is better.
That was my attempt to persuade. As we all know, facts are not persuasive and most types of logical argument are not either. The fact is that there are unique challenges regarding the Syrian "refugees" in part because of the higher probability of them having terrorists among them than is typical of immigrants originating from the average other regions. To some people, anecdote is a persuasive way to get a fact across. Didn't work here.Quote:
Sounds like you imposing your own narrative onto a story you know very little about.
You said, "I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe."
Could you set a lower bar for criminalizing a group of people?
I mean... that sounds like someone somewhere didn't do their job, to be sure. But you seem to be suggesting this is the norm, which, based on, "I've seen multiple photos" seems pretty trigger-happy on the "save me daddy guvm't from these bad guys! I'll pay all the taxes!" cry.
I don't bookmark. The amount of immigrants from particular areas (like Somalia) that are on welfare and don't have jobs is vastly higher than typical.Quote:
Source, or what are even talking about?
What agency tracks "immigrating productivity?" What are their evaluation criteria? Based on what sample size and time period?
I have family members who are enough of a case study themselves. They built from the ground up what has become a highly successful, nationwide company. They have dealt with many, many thousands of workers over the decades of their company. From one of their lips to my ears: "I get more work out of one Korean than ten Somalis." Yet, of course, they are forced to employ and assist Somalis that they otherwise would not because government policy.
Neither of those are races. The government disallowing smart discrimination on relevant factors is one of the key ways that people get fucked over.Quote:
FYP.
Neither of which have you demonstrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Besides which, you keep dodging the question of how many innocent people you're willing to treat with reduced dignity to stop how many terrorists. I'm sure you're not saying any non0 % is unacceptable, so the whole crux of this rests on unknown information.
The polarization of your position is based on nothing.
No, that's selectively profiling all the people from one place because of some of the people from that place. If not direct racism, then clear ethnic profiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Fair procedures don't allow for "extra scrutiny" for some places because that means that we're intentionally leaving holes in our policy which any clever terrorist can easily figure out. Like, "If I sneak out the window, mom and dad wont know that I'm out late with my friends." kind of clever.
Get out of here with that tripe. You know the level of science in these threads these days. Don't dodge the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In this case, the point is that you made some BS up as the backbone of your position and now that that's exposed, I want to know the actual motivation for your position instead of some random BS you made up to humor us.
If you can't provide a source for us to evaluate ourselves, then your point is still coming across as you shilling some party line w/o actually knowing what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So now your argument is that some people in your family said some broad stereotypes about people based on geography and that should dictate our nation's immigration policy?
This is totally a boring position to understand, actually.
Lol. If there was any ambiguity in my meaning, then I'll apologize, but I feel confident that you know full well what I was saying and that it's no coincidence that most Polish people are white and most Somali people are black.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not interested in internet debate anymore. One of the least persuadable positions somebody can be in is engaging in argument. I do not recall ever having persuaded anybody no matter the quantity and quality of data and logic presented. So now I just tell facts or provide reason and let them investigate on their own if they're interested.
Explanation is persuasive when the person does not already have a position. Once the person has a position, good luck changing it with explanation.
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.
Ftr is comprised of fairly smart people. Lawyers, scientists, professional poker players, successful business owners.
You're a fool for trying to persuade them without facts and logic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJYTj-VI_L8
Shitlibs I believe is the word?
You forgot unemployed stoners.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I forgot the unemployed, but still chess grand master, stoners.
I beat him so he's any title he should have had (none) would have been taken back by FIDE.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
A lot of xenophobia or just plain ol’ fear. Calm down, it’s gonna be alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The stakes are high, the eyes of the world are on this. Make the right decisions as a country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Again, don’t live in eternal fear bruh
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I remember when these same leaders of America's national intelligence agencies were saying about Russia, hacking and elections; a lot of people dismissed them outright, saying that their this was misinformation and yada yada. I did not know that their word is now gospel.
Besides, “I Don’t know” is not a possible answer for these leaders, it’s their job to figure it out and pronto, and they had a lot of time already to do it. And no, leaving people hopelessly stranded isn’t it.
Do they have anything other than Jamoca & Praline’s n Cream?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Hahahahahaha
You can't make this shit up
The education secretary appears to have cheated on the one test she had to pass
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/31/po...bama-official/
It's a stretch. The direct quotes they used were not exact duplicates, indicating that they were not direct plagiarism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The first one is so similar that it's hard to believe that response didn't come mostly from someone else's original thoughts, but this wasn't a creativity test. Using someone else's answer, when it is the best answer, doesn't seem a problem, here. The content of that answer seemed right, so why are we upset about whether or not she was the first person to say it. So long as she said what she believes, that's enough, right?
The 2nd one is particularly bothersome, since she basically knew the exact policy of the administration she was being tasked to head. Calling that plagiarism doesn't make sense to me, anyway.
I think it would help if we knew the wording of the question to which she responded. Particularly in the case of the second quote, I strongly suspect that words like "open an investigation" and "merit" appear in the question. So it certainly follows that her response would be in kind.
Also, who the hell thoughtfully answers 998 questions, and then says "fuck it just copy that other guy" on the last two?
True story: I was in the 11th grade and my buddy Ross asked to copy my english homework, comprehension questions for some book we were reading. I let him, and we both turned in our assignments that day. The next day, the teacher hands back our assignments, and asks me to stay after class, along with another guy named Chris, who I didn't know that well.
The teacher held up both of our papers and said "do you guys think I'm stupid?". He interrogated us for about 10 minutes, demonstrating how our answers are almost identical on almost every question. Neither of us knew what the hell was going on. We denied it vehemently, and were ultimately released on our own recognizance.
On the way out of school, I saw Chris in the parking lot. I asked him, "what do you think that was about?" He said, "I don't know man, I copied from Ross!!"
If the senate is asking these questions every time we change secretaries, I gotta believe some answers are going to be similar. I mean, if DeVos's answers didn't match Gupta's, then maybe they match the guy before that, or the guy before that. I'm sure if you looked at enough answers, to enough of the same questions, going back far enough, you'll find more than few "matches".
The evidence here is all sorts of flimsy, non existent even. It's really just conjecture at this point. yet the text at the bottom of CNN's screen is "Education Nominee Lifted Senate Questionnaire Answers". Am I the only one who thinks that's unnecessarily accusatory and presumptive of guilt? Should that be what journalism is about?
I dont' know how to explain myself any clearer. Though, I think maybe you do get what I'm saying, you're just horrified. That's possible, I realize my opinion on this is not popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
"we're all descended from immigrants" - so what??? For most of our families, that was a long time ago, when the US population was a mere 20% of what it is now. And for most, that was a time when you could still get a full time job and make enough to at least meagerly support a family, without a high school diploma. Doctors made housecalls, and technology at the time only afforded them the most rudimentary of treatment methods. Jobs were plentiful as American investment and innovation fueled the industrial revolution. And many of those jobs didnt' require much skills, manual labor was far more commonplace than it is now.
Nowadays, you NEED to at least finish high school if you want to do anything. And you're way behind if you don't have a college degree. Doctors can do a lot more for you than they used to, and that comes with tremendous overhead. America isn't the global industrial juggernaut it once was. Jobs are more scarce, and they demand skills.
So I see a huge difference between Giovanni disembarking on Ellis Island back then, and Jose paddling a raft to Miami today. It was a thousand times easier for Giovanni join society and contribute. He also doesn't need much help. Jose can't do anything without an education, a drivers license, someone to keep him healthy, and college grants for his kids.
The idea that we should be opening our borders and offering today's immigrants the same opportunities as our great-grandfathers just doesn't register with me. It's not racist, jingoist, or xenophobic to demand that they bring more to the table now.
None of this is true, as far as I understand things. Certainly not the opening sentence which precedes an excellent explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I would not claim to a lack of understanding which I do not feel. I don't imagine there is anything that could possible exist on FTR which would horrify me, certainly not an opinion.
I don't see how any of that conflicts with the past, but I do see that you feel that we're ready, as a nation, for a new path.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt when you suspected I was trolling. I rarely troll, and I can't think of a time I trolled without making it perfectly clear in the same post as the troll what I was doing.
A) name-calling pretty much undermines the credibility of any criticism you could have of his ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Nonetheless, I'll let that go and ask:
What is your critique of this video?
I often watch the Green bros YouTube vids, and often find them to be over the edge with wishy-washy liberal ideals, so I was expected a certain side of him that simply isn't in this video.
What did I miss?
Imagine you're living in Aleppo with your family. You need to flee with the wife and the kids, cos bombs. You've had a decent job, so you can afford the trip (a few thousand to the traffickers). You leave Syria and enter the next country up, Lebanon. You're in refugee camps hosting tens of thousands, with very little water, food or shelter. You need to get your family to a safer place, maybe somewhere you can get some kind of a job and put your kids to school. Do youQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
a) get your family on a raft and try to cross from either Lebanon or Turkey to europe, sailing a couple days with a significant percentage of the travellers drowning in the mediterranean, to be followed by days or weeks going around europe carrying everything you own.
b) go by yourself, being the strongest, having the best chance to make the trip, try to get asylum somewhere and petition your family to follow.
The sarcasm?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
A fool to try to persuade with facts and logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I'm no exception. No argument is perfect. It's very easy to plausibly counter and feel satisfied.
c) women and children first.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Shitlib isn't about having a bias; it's about being a shitty hypocrite. John Green is biased, but he is not a shitty hypocrite.
Shitcon is also a thing (that I just made up). It's people like Erick Erickson and Ben Shapiro, who were vehemently Never Trump, saying trash about how he would never put a staunch conservative on the court, and then, after Trump nominates their beloved Gorsuch, they claim how it would have never happened with Hillary. They're shitservatives who didn't vote Trump and tried to get conservatives to not vote Trump. We had to save them from their shitty brains.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
Might have guessed at it had he read Jacks' last ten posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The common denominator between shitlibs and shitcons? They don't support Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Therefore, shit=Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
On a perilous journey across the seas and europe, on foot, while you stay back and chill. Most people don't seem to share your views, and instead select b).Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Then argue that the policy is misguided. The policy is still based on Islamic terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
Wuf am I a shitlib?
Staying is worse. If it's not, then the argument that the people need to be taken is contradicted. And (b) is contradicted since the family would still follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
There is a reason why thousands of years of evolution got us to believe women and children first.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I wouldn't describe anybody here as a shitlib.
Uh, this makes no sense at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Please reread. The options were to either stay in the neighboring countries (Lebanon and Turkey, which both still hold the vast majority of all refugees ever to leave Syria) or to travel to Europe, North America or wherever. Not to stay in Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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.
So, they're not refugees then. Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The shit-clock is ticking on those terrorshits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFuKkM-tqN0
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm unimpressed by your quantity and quality of data and logic presented.
Um, say what?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Look for it yourself. There is a tremendous amount of Muslim on Muslim terrorism. And tons that has hit Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The reason I don't provide substantiation myself as a rule anymore is because that sets it up to be disagreed with. If somebody seeks it out themselves, they are far more likely to weigh it.
I wish they were banned. There are reasons they are not. A hope is that we will eventually have enough domestic oil production to tell Saudi Arabia to fuck off. But now, we can't.Quote:
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.
Eh, I could give the world and the typical response would still beQuote:
I'm unimpressed by your quantity and quality of data and logic presented.
https://media.tenor.co/images/8a4a99...a624/tenor.gif
I do the same shit to others. It's nasty.
Stuck in Syria is what makes them refugee candidates. If, like in your scenarios, they don't stay, they're not refugee candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
By now we've sidetracked big time. Let's get back to talking about how loads of majorly buff youngsters are somehow refugees while women and children are somehow tough enough to fight ISIS by themselves.
Now you're thinkin'. Whiny babies need grown ups to fix their shit for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well if your source is something credible, that would support your arguments. If your source is something you read on r/thedonald, then yeah you're probably right.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Unless you provide evidence to back up your claims when asked, they're nothing but empty arguments.
That's not how arguments work.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Descartes: Cogito ergo sum.
Pepe Lepeux : Why do you say that?
Descartes: Look it up.
...doesn't happen.
Assuming the human element is neutral. When in debate, it is not neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Doesn't change the fact that if you present arguments with no evidence, they're shitarguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Person A: Syria is so dangerous! Islamic terrorists keep killing Muslim Syrians! They're refugees!
Person B: We think the Islamic terrorists that are killing other Muslim Syrians are infiltrating the refugee groups.
Person A: What evidence do you have that there are terrorists in Syria!?!?!
For your benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also, don't think too highly of the goings on here. I think that your argument depends on you already agreeing with what you want me to substantiate in the first place, as I presented above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Are you saying cocobill is A and you are B?
Or am I supposed to be A?
My point was this: if the argument is that the ban is to stop terrorism, and no terrorists have ever come from the banned countries, whereas countries whose nationals have committed terrorists acts in the US aren't on the list, it's a hard sell.
Here's an example of something where having data would support your argument. Just saying 'i've seen pictures' doesn't really cut it. Do you have demographics on refugees showing that fit young men are overrepresented?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And if so, can you discount other explanations such as that maybe they're just more able to travel (coco) or perhaps that they're better at getting out of danger?
If your response to these questions is 'look it up', then it's a shitargument. We don't know where you got your information, if it's credible, why you believe it, or more importantly why we should believe it.
Nuclear war is not a threat because it has never happened. Global warming is not a threat to civilization because has not been a threat to civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Or...
I can't give what I'm referencing specifically because it's stuff I see in passing that I don't bookmark. But really quick googles yield theseQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...-enter-sweden/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...rcent-support/
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wor...urope-are-men/
Should these be persuasive to you? I don't know. Probably not. You can find a whole bunch of MSM stuff that says it's not true. You can find holes in the arguments presented.
What do you mean anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Ok, so nothing to do with islamic terrorism. Glad we agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I dunno, maybe you're right. Wouldn't hurt to try tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
By that logic, you should also ban immigrants from Canada, the UK, and all other countries. Just because a terrorist has never come from those places to the US, it's not a threat to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Or...
What I've been saying about debate encapsulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Clearly, my point is not what you have presented it as.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
My point is: IF I said that, it was not researched. Grain of salt.
Well, it's true. Islamic terrorists kill other Muslims the most.
Briefly checked out Alex Jones on the JRE. El oh el this fucking guy is such a fake. I don't believe he believes any of this stuff.
Definition of refugeeQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
: one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution
A Syrian person that fled to Lebanon or Turkey is very much a refugee. Who exactly are you claiming isn't a refugee? Where should who stay?
I just explained to you why a majority of the asylum-seekers you see in for example central Europe are able-bodied younger men. Theier parents, wives and children are in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge...rian_Civil_War
http://time.com/4122186/syrian-refug...ump-young-men/
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I dunno, I mean these sources have no sources themselves.
Take the last one - they quote figures from the UNHCR, but then they don't link their source? Now to disprove this I'm supposed to go to the UNHCR website and try to find the data myself? I have no idea how long this would take me or whether I'd even find the information.
At any rate, wuf. Your stance on providing data is rendering you a troll.
If you're here to say polarizing thoughts which aren't backed by any link to reality, then you're really distracting from an otherwise productive exchange of ideas between people with different political ideologies who are honestly trying to understand the other side's positions w/o personal attacks or condemnation.
It's an amazing discussion going on, here.
I have, multiple times, had to delete entire sections of my posts because I realized that my position was stupid in the light of the new information I know and truth I see in my opposition's points. I get the sense that I'm not the only one.
Your notion that we're all entrenched in our positions and looking for reasons to we're already right - is misplaced, here, I think.
There's a reason FTR doesn't suck. This is a big part of it.
(And yeah, I've been a jerk in the past, but I hope I'm less of one now, in part because of FTR and my internet friends.)
I'm just taking your logic to another logical conclusion. Your argument was 'hasn't happened yet but could happen'. So was mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I never realized the hoax was so intense. They're bending you over backwards when they tell you that a Syrian refugee that is in Lebanon or Turkey needs asylum in Germany or Sweden.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
To be fair, when he does present data it's from dubious sources that themselves don't provide sources. So it shouldn't be a surprise he's reticent to share it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Pussy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy