Most of the attackers thus far appear to be French nationals and one who entered Europe with a forged passport. Like most recent terrorism in the US attributed to jihadism the real threats are largely from homegrown radicalization.
Some people certainly do, but most of the people I know understand how easy it is for ISIS to slip into the flood of legit refugees, and that's their concern. Also, when reports come out of how many of the refugees are men of 'fighting age' and hearing stories of how some to the refugees are behaving in the host countries (look at Sweden) isn't helping their cause.
So perhaps they shouldn't have been let in in the first place. Like the tsarnaev idiots.Most of the attackers thus far appear to be French nationals and one who entered Europe with a forged passport. Like most recent terrorism in the US attributed to jihadism the real threats are largely from homegrown radicalization.
I have enough concern to not want to throw away their freedoms of religion and opinion on a knee-jerk reaction.Do you have any concern for your fellow americans?
Remember how hysterical you got about Ebola?
Considering how ridiculously wrong you were in that case, do you think that might have any lessons for this one?
So perhaps they shouldn't have been let in in the first place. Like the tsarnaev idiots.
Let me know when they have had a reformation. Then I'll believe them.I have enough concern to not want to throw away their freedoms of religion and opinion on a knee-jerk reaction.
Remember how hysterical you got about Ebola?
Considering how ridiculously wrong you were in that case, do you think that might have any lessons for this one?
What evidence do you have that your proposals would offer any significant protection?It is not ignorant to force politicians to protect their constituents first and not a Syrian. It is their job, it is what they were elected to do. How about this, we can let them in, but then it is the personal responsibility of Obama, jeh johnson, and state governors. If one of these guys start preaching American hate or blow up some innocents, it is all on them. 100% criminal liability.
Obama, and the rest, go to prison for endangering americans. If he is willing to sign up for that, let them in.
The problem is, politicians don't give a shit.
If they so firmly believe in their ability to thoroughly vet these individuals then they should be willing to put skin in the game.What evidence do you have that your proposals would offer any significant protection?
So you think the ends justified the means? Since it worked out well, it's okay.That's some good stuff right there. You expect him or people like him to
a) admit their mistakes
b) learn from their mistakes
HAHAHAHAHAHaaa, ahh fuck it.
Remember how I don't give a shit? I prefer to protect americans, not Syrians. But you don't care for that, do you?
So bringing them here voluntarily makes us more safe? Well then, why didn't we just import tens of thousands of potential ebola victims while they were still potentially contagious and we had no way of knowing if they were.It's funny that you think your hysterical reactions somehow equal protecting Americans. In the case of Ebola, it probably would have made Americans LESS safe.
Just wanted you to consider your previous bad ideas and see if that would make you reconsider your current bad idea. It appears not.
Or we could accept the fact that we can't stop all terrorist attacks like rational human beings instead of hysterical ones. This is the same point I try to make to gun control advocates. Shit happens. Bad people do bad things and we can't stop all of it. We need to accept these things as facts of life and stop overreacting to every negative event. Statistically, vetting all these refugees would not reduce our susceptibility to terrorist attacks by any statistical significance. Much more good can come from helping these poor people, if easily manipulated people like you could just find the strength within to stop fretting over every perceived threat like it is the biggest issue that must be dealt with, no matter the cost to our wallets, our humanity, or our freedoms.If they so firmly believe in their ability to thoroughly vet these individuals then they should be willing to put skin in the game.
We have poor people here that need our help and far fewer want to kill us. Nor do they typically adhere to a religion that would rather stone the very people lefties love to protect (gays, adulterers...etc). Take care of our own people first.Or we could accept the fact that we can't stop all terrorist attacks like rational human beings instead of hysterical ones. This is the same point I try to make to gun control advocates. Shit happens. Bad people do bad things and we can't stop all of it. We need to accept these things as facts of life and stop overreacting to every negative event. Statistically, vetting all these refugees would not reduce our susceptibility to terrorist attacks by any statistical significance. Much more good can come from helping these poor people, if easily manipulated people like you could just find the strength within to stop fretting over every perceived threat like it is the biggest issue that must be dealt with, no matter the cost to our wallets, our humanity, or our freedoms.
We have poor people here that need our help and far fewer want to kill us. Nor do they typically adhere to a religion that would rather stone the very people lefties love to protect (gays, adulterers...etc). Take care of our own people first.
But bleeding heart liberals couldn't care less about that. It's about getting another voting block in this country that will depend on handouts and hate christians and white people.
Depends on the GOP bums. The ones that vote for endless trade deals and no reciprocal deals and offshore like crazy while keeping open borders? Sure. Vote them out. Vote the religious fundies out too.You mean help out the welfare queens and dregs of our society? If you really wanted to help them, your first priority would be to throw every GOP bum out of office.
Or we could accept the fact that we can't stop all terrorist attacks like rational human beings instead of hysterical ones. This is the same point I try to make to gun control advocates. Shit happens. Bad people do bad things and we can't stop all of it. We need to accept these things as facts of life and stop overreacting to every negative event. Statistically, vetting all these refugees would not reduce our susceptibility to terrorist attacks by any statistical significance. Much more good can come from helping these poor people, if easily manipulated people like you could just find the strength within to stop fretting over every perceived threat like it is the biggest issue that must be dealt with, no matter the cost to our wallets, our humanity, or our freedoms.
So bringing them here voluntarily makes us more safe? Well then, why didn't we just import tens of thousands of potential ebola victims while they were still potentially contagious and we had no way of knowing if they were.
Because that's how you compare apples to apples here.
You willing to house some potential ebola guys in your house?
Probability is low, severity is high. But you can go ahead and take that risk if you want.
Any good investor looks at probability, severity, and return to come up with a relative value. Currently Syrians are a poor relative value, I don't know probability, I know severity is high, and I get jack shit in return for taking that risk.
You sure weren't a good investor when it came to Ebola, but that didn't stop you from hysterically ranting about that. Probability of a major outbreak was low and severity was low due to our advanced health care system's ability to contain outbreaks, and return was negative because you wanted to make the disease harder to fight there with a quarantine, yet you wanted to do it anyway.
All of this was borne out by what actually happened, by the way.
I am not impressed by your ability to 'invest' in these sort of things, to put it mildly.
This is where you misunderstood severity. You talked of two probabilities, outbreak and spread. Severity is mortality.
A bond may have a low probability of default but a high loss given default (severity). You need to weight your relval by that.
You may have been right, but why you were right is another reason.
Our healthcare system wasn't as good as it should have been, hence the lawsuits in Texas. Had we imported tens of thousands of undetectable high probable ebola people, it'd have been a far different outcome.
So it's GW's fault and the actions of America that caused France to get attacked by terrorists?
Yeah. Because it's not like there were any catastrophic terrorist attacks stemming from Islamic extremism prior to the Iraq war.
A refugee is someone who is seeking refuge from something, yes? In this case, a Syrian refugee is someone is trying to flee from war. This person very likely had a job in Syria before things went to pot, possibly a family, friends, etc. In short, a life they generally enjoyed. The war in question includes ISIS as one of the active forces involved.
So, does it make sense that someone who is fleeing from war would seek to create a war-like situation in the country they're fleeing to, to aid one of the belligerents in the war they're fleeing from?
Here's a much more plausible explanation: Someone got in to France pretending to be a refugee.
I was talking about how some people like to equate refugees with other groups of people they don't like. What are you talking about? Is it relevant to the point I was making?
Depends on the GOP bums. The ones that vote for endless trade deals and no reciprocal deals and offshore like crazy while keeping open borders? Sure. Vote them out. Vote the religious fundies out too.