gun control/mudslime immigration working out great for France again

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://liveleak.com/view?i=cb0_1447249820

[rmt]

Check any news site


Don't know why any one thinks gun control is the answer. All that means is that they have to wait for the police to take them down.

[Pelicans78]

France has been a cuck nation for awhile. Too bad their people just paid for it.

[rmt]

This is pretty big. 35 dead. 100 hostages? Not like the ones here in the US.

[Pelicans78]

This is pretty big. 35 dead. 100 hostages? Not like the ones here in the US.

Don't know how a country's intelligence allows this to happen. Just brutal.

[RD2191]

Anyone heard from Brazil?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Who's the American rock band that were playing where the hostages are being held did anybody hear that?

[Boogie Munster]

Who's the American rock band that were playing where the hostages are being held did anybody hear that?

Eagles of Death Metal out of Cali.

[boutons_deux]

Syria mentioned by attackers

Thanks, Repugs!

[Pelicans78]

Syria mentioned by attackers

Thanks, Repugs!

Please. France has had a burgeoning problem due to their own ineptitude with their immigration problem.

Plus Obama could have dealt with ISIS when he had the chance.

[boutons_deux]

Please. France has had a burgeoning problem due to their own ineptitude with their immigration problem.

Plus Obama could have dealt with ISIS when he had the chance.

If this is due to Syria and general Repug fuck ups in the Middle East, Thanks, Repugs.

What is France's "burgeoning problem" and ineptitude? 6M French CITIZENS are of North African descent.

You really have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-34815972

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

If this is due to Syria and general Repug fuck ups in the Middle East, Thanks, Repugs.

What is France's "burgeoning problem" and ineptitude? 6M French CITIZENS are of North African descent.

You really have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Thats the problem they decided to make north African Muslims their Mexicans. They could've brought over all those gooks from French Indochina instead and none of this would be happening

[resistanze]

Redneck alt thread

[ElNono]

RIP, tbh...

in before "false flag" conspiracies...

[TheSanityAnnex]

Syria mentioned by attackers

Thanks, Repugs!

Tragic events such as this truly show what a fucked up and sick demented individual you really are.

[Silver&Black]

Plus Obama could have dealt with ISIS when he had the chance.

JV Team tbh...

[boutons_deux]

France has been a cuck nation for awhile. Too bad their people just paid for it.

America has been HUGE CUCK nation for decades, in capable of gun control, or stopping terrorist massacres in schools, cinemas, churches, a daily slaughter of 90 gun deaths.

[DMX7]

France has been a cuck nation for awhile. Too bad their people just paid for it.

LOL, home of the free and land of the brave has more mass murders than any other country on the planet, and by a country mile ... shootings at schools, shootings at the movies, at churches, at malls.... but hey, at least we're free...

[Splits]

LOL, home of the free and land of the brave has more mass murders than any other country on the planet, and by a country mile ... shootings at schools, shootings at the movies, at churches, at malls.... but hey, at least we're free...

Smells like freedom to me.


http://i.imgur.com/mE6UYUx.png

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I like that you play as a Pole here. The Polish eugenicist is beautiful irony. Slavs is literal in latin and all that; the e is silent with a hard a in our pronunciation. Almost as amusing as British racists who had populations from Hellenics, Romans, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, Norseman, and who knows what else fucking their way into that particular master race. Germania and it's principalities derived from Theodoric who was ostensibly a hun. At least the ruling class. The conquered fucks dealt with perpetual migration particularly after Genghis burned out everything East of them and the survivors fled the hordes. Before that was the Crusades period and a migration pattern that stretched for centuries.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

france had it coming for being a passive country

bending over for arabs who want this and that who havnt done shit for france

lol turban, hijab wearing faggots who want sharia law in france...what fkn clowns

this is particularly stupid. France started bombing in Syria before anyone else including the Russians or us. They were proactive in Mali and have been hammering at Boko Haram in West Africa for years. The reason why they were attacked is because they are actually trying to fight a war.

and you definitely should research more before handwaving at Parisian slums. Makes you look incredibly obtuse to the homefront.

ffs they tried passing laws banning clothing and you claim they are passive. I myself see it as incredibly authoritarian and thought police like. Are you even American?

[CosmicCowboy]

And the US wants to bring in 65,000 Syrian "refugees". It was registered "refugees" that just shot the fuck out of Paris.

[ChumpDumper]

So all 65,000 would be terrorists?

You're reacting just the way Daesh wants you to. :tu

[CosmicCowboy]

No chump. But what is an acceptable percentage? 1%? That gives you 650 potential terrorists. 1/2 of 1%? 325. Fuck it. I see no reason to go asking for trouble. We certainly don't need them and I don't want them.

[CosmicCowboy]

People that are willing to die killing other people for a religion are fucked up no matter what religion it is.

[ChumpDumper]

No chump. But what is an acceptable percentage? 1%? That gives you 650 potential terrorists. 1/2 of 1%? 325. Fuck it. I see no reason to go asking for trouble. We certainly don't need them and I don't want them.lol where are you getting these figures?

[ChumpDumper]

People that are willing to die killing other people for a religion are fucked up no matter what religion it is.We got plenty of those already.

[CosmicCowboy]

So why do you want more?

[ChumpDumper]

Who said I wanted more? your contention is that some refugees coming into the states will definitely be terra-ists using your made up math. That's your problem.

[HemisfairArena]

Who said I wanted more? your contention is that some refugees coming into the states will definitely be terra-ists using your made up math. That's your problem.

So youre okay letting illegals in,,,,,typical liberal,,,,

[ChumpDumper]

So youre okay letting illegals in,,,,,typical liberal,,,,Illegals are already here. I'm fine with keeping them out. Guys like you have some stupid ideas about them tho. Along with making stupid assumptions. Typical conservative.

[CosmicCowboy]

Who said I wanted more? your contention is that some refugees coming into the states will definitely be terra-ists using your made up math. That's your problem.

It's a very high probability that some will slip through. You disagree?

And it appears you agree with me that we don't need any of the "refugees".

[ChumpDumper]

It's a very high probability that some will slip through. You disagree?How high a probability? Give a number.


And it appears you agree with me that we don't need any of the "refugees".You can't even use the word without snarky quotation marks, so chances are we don't agree on anything.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol you are such a tool. Won't even commit if you are for or against importing Syrian Muslims to the US.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol you are such a tool. Won't even commit if you are for or against importing Syrian Muslims to the US.I'm for it, dumbass.

[CosmicCowboy]

Figures

[ChumpDumper]

Figureswhat figures?

Don't be such a snarky girl. Actually explain yourself.

[CosmicCowboy]

what figures?

Don't be such a snarky girl. Actually explain yourself.

How many Syrian Muslims do you want to import?

[ChumpDumper]

How many Syrian Muslims do you want to import?I'm sure we can absorb the number cited.

Are you really afraid of all of the Syrian Muslims that you have to say Syrian MUSLIMS every time?

Did you say Obama's middle name all the time for effect too? Did he scare you that way?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

They are Syrian Muslims.

Why are you afraid to say it?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

They are Syrian Muslims.

Why are you afraid to say it?I just said it, genius.

Have the meds kicked in yet? You seem to be in a fog.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol you said it as a bitchy little criticism of my use of the term.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol you said it as a bitchy little criticism of my use of the term.So? You never answered my questions about your fearing all of them.

Do you fear all Muslims, CC?

[CosmicCowboy]

Of course not. However there is indisputably a jihadist faction that is dangerous. You can quibble about percentages like a little bitch all you want but if we go out of our way to import Syrian Muslims by the tens or hundreds of thousands there will inevitably be a percentage that are a problem. If you think our bureaucrats are able to screen out 100% you are being incredibly naive. I see no reason to go out of our way to look for and import trouble.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course not. However there is indisputably a jihadist faction that is dangerous. You can quibble about percentages like a little bitch all you want but if we go out of our way to import Syrian Muslims by the tens or hundreds of thousands there will inevitably be a percentage that are a problem. If you think our bureaucrats are able to screen out 100% you are being incredibly naive.So which Muslims do you not fear, CC?

[CosmicCowboy]

The women and children all those young male "refugees" that are flooding Europe left behind are probably pretty harmless.

[ChumpDumper]

The women and children all those young male "refugees" that are flooding Europe left behind are probably pretty harmless.Where is your proof that the vast majority of refugees are adult males?

And why do you use quotation marks around the word refugees?

[CosmicCowboy]

Where is your proof that the vast majority of refugees are adult males?

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

And why do you use quotation marks around the word refugees?


http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

Adult Man/Woman ration is 65% to 14%. Children weren't divided by sex.

Leaving for economic motives doesn't qualify as classic refugee status. When motive has yet to be determined for the vast majority of the Syrians that have swarmed Europe using quotation marks is entirely appropriate.

[ChumpDumper]

Leaving for economic motives doesn't qualify as classic refugee status. When motive has yet to be determined for the vast majority of the Syrians that have swarmed Europe using quotation marks is entirely appropriate.Wait, you think that millions of people are leaving Syria just for economic reasons?

No other reason?

[CosmicCowboy]

Wait, you think that millions of people are leaving Syria just for economic reasons?

No other reason?

Didn't say that. Are you saying they are ALL in fear for their life and just aren't looking for a better life in Europe?

Why are the majority of the "refugees" young males?

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't say that. Are you saying they are ALL in fear for their life and just aren't looking for a better life in Europe?Given the war in Syria, are people just supposed to sit in tents in Turkey waiting for handouts indefinitely?

They've been doing that for four years. Would you sit and wait for handouts for you and your family for years?

[CosmicCowboy]

Life sucks for hundreds of millions if not in the billions around the world...should we be importing them all?

[ChumpDumper]

Life sucks for hundreds of millions if not in the billions around the world...should we be importing them all?The ones whose lives we helped to destroy? Absolutely.

Thanks for not answering my questions. That was an answer in itself.

[CosmicCowboy]

How exactly did we destroy the Syrians lives? We have pretty well sat on our hands on that one.

[ChumpDumper]

How exactly did we destroy the Syrians lives? We have pretty well sat on our hands on that one.So you call ~10,000 sorties "sitting on our hands" -- lol.

[CosmicCowboy]

Pretty much. Are you saying the air strikes against ISIS are driving all the "good Muslim males" out of Syria and we should feel guilty and import them into the US?

[TheSanityAnnex]

So all 65,000 would be terrorists?

You're reacting just the way Daesh wants you to. :tu
What is an acceptable percentage of terrorists out of the 65,000?

[ChumpDumper]

What is an acceptable percentage of terrorists out of the 65,000?I don't make up numbers like you. Sorry.

I'm not going to be terrified by your made up boogeymen du jour.

[CosmicCowboy]

Lol chump running like a bitch from that question.

[ChumpDumper]

Lol chump running like a bitch from that question.lol projecting. You couldn't even say you would try to better the well being of your family.

That's a real bitch move, throwing your family under the bus for a hypothetical SpursTalk argument.

[CosmicCowboy]

Chump wants to pretend the world is all rainbows and unicorns and the percentage would be zero.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump wants to pretend the world is all rainbows and unicorns and the percentage would be zero.You want to pretend you wouldn't work to improve the lives of your family. That is some pathetic shit.

[CosmicCowboy]

lol projecting. You couldn't even say you would try to better the well being of your family.

That's a real bitch move, throwing your family under the bus for a hypothetical SpursTalk argument.

So you are condoning economic immigration. Apparently only for Muslims, though.

[ChumpDumper]

So you are condoning economic immigration. Apparently only for Muslims, though.We're spending $14 million a day to help make them refugees and you were completely ignorant of that fact. It's astounding just how much you are talking out of your ass today. All you can say is you are afraid of Muslims. That's fine. I'm not.

[CosmicCowboy]

Lol chump gets totally owned like the bitch he is and reverts to his usual straw men. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Lol chump gets totally owned like the bitch he is and reverts to his usual straw men. :lmaolol CC has to declare victory before he scuttles out of the thread like a cockroach when the lights go on.

Its no straw man -- you say we sat on our hands. You were wrong.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao at chump claiming US token air strikes are responsible for Syrian refugees. :lmao at chump getting the "refugee" gender disparity shoved up his ass. :lmao @ chump pulling out his "fear of Muslims" straw man and then trying to deny it. Chump the cockroach indeed.

[ChumpDumper]

We took in 85,000 Iraqi Muslims (I use the Muslim label because CC demands they always be called Muslims for fear they might be mistaken for Buddhists) from 2007-13 -- how many of them are terrorists?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao at chump claiming US token air strikes are responsible for Syrian refugees.You call 10,000 soties "token"?
:lmao at chump getting the "refugee" gender disparity shoved up his ass.I asked you to prove the gender disparity you claimed. You ran away from that.
:lmao @ chump pulling out his "fear of Muslims" straw man and then trying to deny it. Chump the cockroach indeed.Of course you're afraid of Muslims. You can't say you aren't.

Now you need to prove that the airstrikes on Syria are token and you still have that gender disparity to prove.

I'll wait for you to meltdown before you do either.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't know, Chump, Do you?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know, Chump, Do you?So what do you want to do with all the 85,000 potential Muslim terrorists that are already here, CC?

[CosmicCowboy]

If you are too stupid to follow the link I posted for you on the verified gender disparity I can't help you. Throw some more straw, chump.

[ChumpDumper]

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

Adult Man/Woman ration is 65% to 14%. Children weren't divided by sex.

Leaving for economic motives doesn't qualify as classic refugee status. When motive has yet to be determined for the vast majority of the Syrians that have swarmed Europe using quotation marks is entirely appropriate.http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

It's easy to see why they would leave considering the total refugee demographic situation.

But yes, CC would just sit in a camp waiting for rations for him and his family.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ahhh...so I DID answer your question and prove the gender disparity. Thanks for playing.

[ChumpDumper]

Ahhh...so I DID answer your question and prove the gender disparity. Thanks for playing.Missed the link in all your ducking.

Did you check the actual demographic disparity and not your cherry picked numbers or will you just stick to them?

[Sportcamper]

So happy that Europe has not allowed concealed carry permits in over 100 years…Think about how much larger the carnage would have been if people were shooting back at the Muslim Terrorist…
# Muslim Terrorist Lives Matter… :cry :cry :cry

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

What is an acceptable percentage of terrorists out of the 65,000?

Where did you get the 65,000 number from?

http://i.imgur.com/2YQThAS.jpg

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

So what do you want to do with all the 85,000 potential Muslim terrorists that are already here, CC?

They should be dragged from their homes and deported

[ChumpDumper]

They should be dragged from their homes and deportedWhy? What did they do?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Why? What did they do?

The point is to not give them any opportunity to do something. You don't import your enemy into your own backyard. "Oh sorry we bombed your village come live here forgive us". Thats not going to make them any less mad

[ChumpDumper]

The point is to not give them any opportunity to do something. You don't import your enemy into your own backyard. "Oh sorry we bombed your village come live here forgive us". Thats not going to make them any less madHow do you know they are the enemy?

[vy65]

So all 65,000 would be terrorists?

You're reacting just the way Daesh wants you to. :tu

That's a pretty reckless position to take. You'd have to prove that ICE, DHS, the State Dept., etc. could effectively screen 65,000-100,000 "refugees" for every single potential terrorist. That's an awfully high batting average, and I haven't seen you articulate a single reason why the government is capable of following through. It's a reckless position because, as we've seen, 8 people can wreak havoc. Yet you seem willing to gamble lives on a less than 0.00008% error rate to satisfy your guilt.

And before you cite the Iraqi example, you'll have to explain why that is an analogous situation considering ISIS is now using the refugee situation to export terrorists to the west.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I don't make up numbers like you. Sorry.

I'm not going to be terrified by your made up boogeymen du jour.

Yet you are terrified to answer a very straightforward question.

Do you think there will be at least 1 terrorist out of the 65,000 yes or no?

[boutons_deux]

It's wonderful how you paranoid, dickless rightwingnuts defend America NOT welcoming refugees, asylum seekers CREATED by your Repugs.

Sandy Hook, Aurora, black church burnings, massacres?

well that's acceptable terrorism, mass murder enabled by NRA/gun fellators flooding America with 300M+ guns and no effective gun regulation.

[vy65]

^ glad to have you back buddy

[Th'Pusher]

That's a pretty reckless position to take. You'd have to prove that ICE, DHS, the State Dept., etc. could effectively screen 65,000-100,000 "refugees" for every single potential terrorist. That's an awfully high batting average, and I haven't seen you articulate a single reason why the government is capable of following through. It's a reckless position because, as we've seen, 8 people can wreak havoc. Yet you seem willing to gamble lives on a less than 0.00008% error rate to satisfy your guilt.

And before you cite the Iraqi example, you'll have to explain why that is an analogous situation considering ISIS is now using the refugee situation to export terrorists to the west.
Wasn't your position that Isis was not a threat to the US?

[CosmicCowboy]

There are almost 8 billion people in the world and probably half of that numbers lives suck compared to ours. That doesn't mean we have to welcome all of them to the US out of some kind of fucked up collective guilty conscience.

[vy65]

Wasn't your position that Isis was not a threat to the US?

I don't know if it was. But I highly doubt I would've said importing 100,000 Syrians into the US posed no security risk, which is what we're discussing now.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't know if it was. But I highly doubt I would've said importing 100,000 Syrians into the US posed no security risk, which is what we're discussing now.

Chump says your argument is only valid if you can define exactly how many are security risks.

[vy65]

Chump says your argument is only valid if you can define exactly how many are security risks.

Which is why it's stupid and beyond reckless. There's a reason why the risk-utility test is one of the cornerstones of law: we don't gamble with people's lives to assuage guilt or expediency.

[CosmicCowboy]

Which is why it's stupid and beyond reckless. There's a reason why the risk-utility test is one of the cornerstones of law: we don't gamble with people's lives to assuage guilt or expediency.

Chump wants to. Apparently he thinks we should allow them all into the US out of guilt for running a half assed air campaign against ISIS in Syria.

[vy65]

Chump wants to. Apparently he thinks we should allow them all into the US out of guilt for running a half assed air campaign against ISIS in Syria.

That's not entirely fair to his position. It's guilt from fucking up the region -- not just strikes on ISIS.

Regardless, he or anyone in that camp is hard pressed to explain why that guilt should expose innocent lives to the risk, no matter how small, of domestic terrorism, considering how destructive we've seen that terrorism to be.

[boutons_deux]

how destructive we've seen that terrorism to be.

not nearly as destructive as the Repugs criminally busting into and terrorizing Iraq, leading directly to the rise of ISIS.

you rightwingnuts, Repugs talk as if Middle East history started with ISIS a couple years ago.

[CosmicCowboy]

not nearly as destructive as the Repugs criminally busting into and terrorizing Iraq, leading directly to the rise of ISIS.

you rightwingnuts, Repugs talk as if Middle East history started with ISIS a couple years ago.

Boo, if you can figure out how to alter the past we welcome your intervention. Otherwise lets concentrate on NOW. Just because we may have made some mistakes in the past that doesn't justify opening the immigration doors wide open to Syrian Muslims.

[boutons_deux]

Boo, if you can figure out how to alter the past we welcome your intervention. Otherwise lets concentrate on NOW. Just because we may have made some mistakes in the past that doesn't justify opening the immigration doors wide open to Syrian Muslims.

yes, yes, let's "move forward", forgetting, absolving by default, how we got here, how fucking convenient.

Ignoring, forgetting the (recent) past guarantees we won't repeat the past.


"some mistakes"? Holy fucking shit! :lol

They weren't Repug "mistakes", they were criminal lies, murder, geopolitical neocon bullshit to "regime change" Iraq, Syria, and Iran for the sake of establishing US hegemony over that region's oil.

I don't expect "we Repugs" to have the slightest credibility on how to "concentrate on NOW", other than to blame everything on the Obama.

[Quetzal-X]

"some mistakes"- motherfuck goddam only in a christian nation lol lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I thought it was dumb to overthrow Sadaam but whats done is done. He was evil balancing evil. It still doesn't mean the US is the reason or the excuse for Islamic Jihadists to exist.

[Bender]

There are almost 8 billion people in the world and probably half of that numbers lives suck compared to ours. That doesn't mean we have to welcome all of them to the US out of some kind of fucked up collective guilty conscience.

:tu

but that's "who we are" according to our Commander in Chief.

[boutons_deux]

I thought it was dumb to overthrow Sadaam but whats done is done. He was evil balancing evil. It still doesn't mean the US is the reason or the excuse for Islamic Jihadists to exist.

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12063490_997750220248455_6367106688461776071_n.jpg ?oh=4347fa7ec2effc78796097db73585775&oe=56F280BA

[ChumpDumper]

That's a pretty reckless position to take. You'd have to prove that ICE, DHS, the State Dept., etc. could effectively screen 65,000-100,000 "refugees" for every single potential terrorist. That's an awfully high batting average, and I haven't seen you articulate a single reason why the government is capable of following through. It's a reckless position because, as we've seen, 8 people can wreak havoc. Yet you seem willing to gamble lives on a less than 0.00008% error rate to satisfy your guilt.

And before you cite the Iraqi example, you'll have to explain why that is an analogous situation considering ISIS is now using the refugee situation to export terrorists to the west.There are Iraqi terrorists.

How many of them are in the 85,000 that have been granted refuge in the US?

There are already about 2000 Syrians refugees in the US. How many of those are terrorists?

[ChumpDumper]

Yet you are terrified to answer a very straightforward question.

Do you think there will be at least 1 terrorist out of the 65,000 yes or no?Don't know.

Do you think there is one in the 2000 already here?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump says your argument is only valid if you can define exactly how many are security risks.There are already 2000 of them here.

How many of them are terrorists?

[ChumpDumper]

That's not entirely fair to his position. It's guilt from fucking up the region -- not just strikes on ISIS.

Regardless, he or anyone in that camp is hard pressed to explain why that guilt should expose innocent lives to the risk, no matter how small, of domestic terrorism, considering how destructive we've seen that terrorism to be.They're already here.

What is our exposure right now?

[vy65]

There are Iraqi terrorists.

How many of them are in the 85,000 that have been granted refuge in the US?

There are already about 2000 Syrians refugees in the US. How many of those are terrorists?

I don't know the numbers, neither do you. You can't definitively say none are would-be terrorists just as I can't say some are. It's a a non-sequitur. But you'll harp on them to deflect from the basic, logical point that you've refused to address: why give ISIS the opportunity?

I understand that you're plagued by guilt, but you haven't explained why assuaging your guilt should result in exposing people to the risk of terrorism: regardless of how high or low that risk is, why expose people to it when it is totally avoidable (i.e., not bringing in 65,000-100,000 refuges)? Are you really so arrogant to say that there is no risk whatsoever? That the government can screen all security threats before allowing them in?


They're already here.

What is our exposure right now?

Considering what happened over the weekend, I'd say our exposure is higher than anyone previously thought. But neither you nor I can answer that question with any level of exactitude - but I have a feeling that won't stop you from obfuscating on irrelevant points to deflect.

More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?

[vy65]

There are Iraqi terrorists.

How many of them are in the 85,000 that have been granted refuge in the US?

There are already about 2000 Syrians refugees in the US. How many of those are terrorists?

I don't know the numbers, neither do you. You can't definitively say none are would-be terrorists just as I can't say some are. It's a a non-sequitur. But you'll harp on them to deflect from the basic, logical point that you've refused to address: why give ISIS the opportunity?

I understand that you're plagued by guilt, but you haven't explained why assuaging your guilt should result in exposing people to the risk of terrorism: regardless of how high or low that risk is, why expose people to it when it is totally avoidable (i.e., not bringing in 65,000-100,000 refuges)? Are you really so arrogant to say that there is no risk whatsoever? That the government can screen all security threats before allowing them in?


They're already here.

What is our exposure right now?

Considering what happened over the weekend, I'd say our exposure is higher than anyone previously thought. But neither you nor I can answer that question with any level of exactitude - but I have a feeling that won't stop you from obfuscating on irrelevant points to deflect.

More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?

[tbdog]

I don't know how relaxed gun control could have negated this attack? It could have been worse if civilians had guns.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know the numbers, neither do you. You can't definitively say none are would-be terrorists just as I can't say some are. It's a a non-sequitur. But you'll harp on them to deflect from the basic, logical point that you've refused to address: why give ISIS the opportunity?Why let Daesh win by default?


I understand that you're plagued by guiltDon't tell me how I feel, OK?
but you haven't explained why assuaging your guilt should result in exposing people to the risk of terrorism: regardless of how high or low that risk is, why expose people to it when it is totally avoidable (i.e., not bringing in 65,000-100,000 refuges)? Are you really so arrogant to say that there is no risk whatsoever? That the government can screen all security threats before allowing them in?There is risk, but turning tail in the face of terrorism is exactly what the terrorists want us to do.


Considering what happened over the weekend, I'd say our exposure is higher than anyone previously thought. But neither you nor I can answer that question with any level of exactitude - but I have a feeling that won't stop you from obfuscating on irrelevant points to deflect.How is it irrelevant?

Do you want to expel every Muslim refugee we already took in because you think there is some unquantifiable risk?

More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?

[ChumpDumper]

There are over 200 Syrian refugees in Texas already.

There are few in Austin where I live.

What should I do to minimize my risk here since they definitely might be terrorists?

[vy65]

Why let Daesh win by default?

Because it's not letting them win.


Don't tell me how I feel, OK?

No. You've plastered your guilt for fucking up the region all over this thread, so don't complain.


There is risk, but turning tail in the face of terrorism is exactly what the terrorists want us to do.

Opening our borders for up to 100,000 Syrians is what we gotta do to not "turn tail?" What kind of misinformed machismo is this? Are there not more effective methods of combating terrorism that allow us to save face?

This isn't like the debate about the PATRIOT ACT where the "don't let the terrorists" win mantra emanated. That is unless you can explain how allowing up to 100,000 Syrians to come to this country is necessary to protect the civil liberties of US citizens, in which case, I'm all ears.


How is it irrelevant?

How is what irrelevant? The numbers? What?


Do you want to expel every Muslim refugee we already took in because you think there is some unquantifiable risk?

I don't know about expel, I haven't thought about it. I'd certainly think heightened observation of them would be in order -- I think it'd be prudent to do something proactive even if it turns out unnecessary. Don't you agree? Or do you think it prudent to give them free-reign to do whatever they want?

[ChumpDumper]

Because it's not letting them win.Of course it is. Changing our policy to one of suspicion of every Muslim plays right into their hands.


No. You've plastered your guilt for fucking up the region all over this thread, so don't complain.It's about paying for what you break. Now I know you want to act like we are blameless. Tough.



Opening our borders for up to 100,000 Syrians is what we gotta do to not "turn tail?" What kind of misinformed machismo is this? Are there not more effective methods of combating terrorism that allow us to save face?It's doing what we say we are going to do and not cowering in fear as you want to do for some threat you can't even describe.


This isn't like the debate about the PATRIOT ACT where the "don't let the terrorists" win mantra emanated. That is unless you can explain how allowing up to 100,000 Syrians to come to this country is necessary to protect the civil liberties of US citizens, in which case, I'm all ears.I just did.



How is what irrelevant? The numbers? What?So you don't know what you said is irrelevant? I believe you.



I don't know about expel, I haven't thought about it. I'd certainly think heightened observation of them would be in order -- I think it'd be prudent to do something proactive even if it turns out unnecessary. Don't you agree? Or do you think it prudent to give them free-reign to do whatever they want?Do they have free rein now? do they do whatever they want? Tell me everything you know about the refugees you didn't even know were in the country until I just told you.

[boutons_deux]

Actual evidence, on the other hand, shows that less than two percent (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/) of terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013 in the E.U. were religiously motivated.

In 2013, just one percent of the 152 terrorist attacks were religious in nature;

in 2012, less than three percent of the 219 terrorist attacks were inspired by religion.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_sto p_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselve s/

rightwingnut haters exploiting Paris to express their racism, nativism, xenophobia.

[vy65]

So you've acknowledged that a) allowing 100,000 Syrians to come to this country poses some risk of terrorism and b) that risk is needless, except for assuaging your guilt. Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't see you addressing this point directly. I also don't see you defending the assertion that not one of those Syrians could be or is a (potential) terrorist. Please let me know if I missed that too.


Of course it is. Changing our policy to one of suspicion of every Muslim plays right into their hands.

We've already got a policy of suspicion -- people still freak out when muslims fly on airplanes, we still have Homeland Security, etc... Whether that suspicion is reasonable or not is another debate.

But what you're advocating for is not like the above. You want open borders for 100,000 Syrians because that somehow rejects a policy of suspicion. You haven't explained why. More to the point, you haven't explained why that's reasonable considering the security risks: do you not think that we can reject a "policy of suspicion" without needlessly exposing ourselves to a risk of domestic terrorism. Or are open borders the only way to do so?


It's about paying for what you break. Now I know you want to act like we are blameless. Tough.

I'm keeping the ad hom out, but I guess you can't. Also, where'd I say or act like we are blameless? I know we fucked the region up, but you haven't persuaded me that guilt for doing so should open our borders.


It's doing what we say we are going to do and not cowering in fear as you want to do for some threat you can't even describe.

That's some great rhetoric that didn't address my question. So I'm guessing you're conceding that opening or not opening borders for Syrian refugees has no relationship to the civil liberties and rights of US citizens. Once you answer this question, I'll address the point you're making.

And its not like open borders for refugees has been some long-standing policy of ours.


So you don't know what you said is irrelevant? I believe you.

I said a bunch of things. Your assertion was vague so I asked for clarification. Are you incapable of providing it?


Do they have free rein now? do they do whatever they want? Tell me everything you know about the refugees you didn't even know were in the country until I just told you.

Do they not? Are they under surveillance? Do they check in with government liaison officers? Do we know who they associate with? Do we know their backgrounds? Since you seem to know so much about them, please enlighten us all.

[ChumpDumper]

So you've acknowledged that a) allowing 100,000 Syrians to come to this country poses some risk of terrorism and b) that risk is needless, except for assuaging your guilt. Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't see you addressing this point directly. I also don't see you defending the assertion that not one of those Syrians could be or is a (potential) terrorist. Please let me know if I missed that too.You're wrong. You're corrected.


We've already got a policy of suspicion -- people still freak out when muslims fly on airplanes, we still have Homeland Security, etc... Whether that suspicion is reasonable or not is another debate.Why is it another debate? Your "reasonable" reaction is to refuse any refugee from Syria. This is exactly what we are debating.


But what you're advocating for is not like the above. You want open borders for 100,000 Syrians because that somehow rejects a policy of suspicion. You haven't explained why. More to the point, you haven't explained why that's reasonable considering the security risks: do you not think that we can reject a "policy of suspicion" without needlessly exposing ourselves to a risk of domestic terrorism. Or are open borders the only way to do so?We already screen the refugees that have come into the US for the last 8 years from that area, including Syria. If you think they have done something wrong and let in terrorists already, say what they did wrong and what they should do to correct their mistakes.


I'm keeping the ad hom out, but I guess you can't.You already used it. Don't act like you didn't.
Also, where'd I say or act like we are blameless? I know we fucked the region up, but you haven't persuaded me that guilt for doing so should open our borders.It's not guilt.


That's some great rhetoric that didn't address my question. So I'm guessing you're conceding that opening or not opening borders for Syrian refugees has no relationship to the civil liberties and rights of US citizens. Once you answer this question, I'll address the point you're making.What rights of yours have been infringed by the Syrian refugees that are already here?


And its not like open borders for refugees has been some long-standing policy of ours.It has never been open for anyone and it won't be for the Syrians, so you can drop the straw man once and for all.


I said a bunch of things. Your assertion was vague so I asked for clarification. Are you incapable of providing it?So you don't know what you said is irrelevant. I believe you.


Do they not? Are they under surveillance? Do they check in with government liaison officers? Do we know who they associate with? Do we know their backgrounds? Since you seem to know so much about them, please enlighten us all.Hell you just found out they are already here in the thousands.

How does that make you feel?

Do you feel safe right now?

Are you personally going to do something to make yourself more safe in the face of this potential threat -- especially since for all your ignorance on the matter, they could have free rein and could be outside your door this very second.

What are you going to do about it?

[vy65]

You're wrong. You're corrected.

Nope. You still haven't persuaded me that your guilt is reason enough to unnecessarily expose people to the risk of terrorism.


Why is it another debate? Your "reasonable" reaction is to refuse any refugee from Syria. This is exactly what we are debating.

Because the examples I gave you are not examples of an open border policy, which is what you're advocating. That's why it's another debate


We already screen the refugees that have come into the US for the last 8 years from that area, including Syria. If you think they have done something wrong and let in terrorists already, say what they did wrong and what they should do to correct their mistakes.

The question has been asked, and you still haven't responded as to why that screening process would be effective in identifying each and every potential terrorist of the 100,000 proposed to emigrate here. Past success does not guarantee future safety.


You already used it.

Where'd I use it?


It's not guilt.

Sure it is, and you've admitted as much.

You think we should needlessly expose people to unnecessary threats just because it'll make you feel better.

You should own up to your position instead of waffling on it.


What rights of yours have been infringed by the Syrian refugees that are already here?

You're confused - opening borders doesn't engender the same issues that came with the PATRIOT ACT. That's why this isn't an issue of "letting the terrorists win." I never said opening borders to Syrians infringes my rights so try again.


It has never been open for anyone and it won't be for the Syrians, so you can drop the straw man once and for all.

Sure it's open. It's not a straw man - it's what we've been debating the entire time.


So you don't know what you said is irrelevant. I believe you.

I asked for clarification. I honestly have no idea why you refuse to give me an idea of what you're talking about?


Hell you just found out they are already here in the thousands.

How does that make you feel?

Do you feel safe right now?

Are you personally going to do something to make yourself more safe in the face of this potential threat -- especially since for all your ignorance on the matter, they could have free rein and could be outside your door this very second.

What are you going to do about it?

Why are you trying to make this about me? Are you that interested in me? How do you know what I do and don't know?

My personal feelings are irrelevant to the point of government policy - which is what this discussion has been about. Your need to make this personal is par for the course so I can't say I'm surprised.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. You still haven't persuaded me that your guilt is reason enough to unnecessarily expose people to the risk of terrorism.You're wrong in saying it's guilt. You have been corrected several times.


Because the examples I gave you are not examples of an open border policy, which is what you're advocating. That's why it's another debateStraw man.



The question has been asked, and you still haven't responded as to why that screening process would be effective in identifying each and every potential terrorist of the 100,000 proposed to emigrate here. Past success does not guarantee future safety.Why would it not be? The US has already done it for seven years in that region and Syria for over a year and not a peep out of you til you got scared.


Where'd I use it?The guilt crap.


Sure it is, and you've admitted as much.No. I told you specifically what it is about.


You think we should needlessly expose people to unnecessary threats just because it'll make you feel better.

You should own up to your position instead of waffling on it.Keep pitching the straw and ad hominems.


You're confused - opening borders doesn't engender the same issues that came with the PATRIOT ACT. That's why this isn't an issue of "letting the terrorists win." I never said opening borders to Syrians infringes my rights so try again.Straw man.


Sure it's open. It's not a straw man - it's what we've been debating the entire time.It's not open. It's a straw man.


I asked for clarification. I honestly have no idea why you refuse to give me an idea of what you're talking about?Thanks for tell me you don't even know what you are talking about.


Why are you trying to make this about me? Are you that interested in me? How do you know what I do and don't know?You already made this about me.


My personal feelings are irrelevant to the point of government policy - which is what this discussion has been about. Your need to make this personal is par for the course so I can't say I'm surprised.You already made it personal. You aren't concerned enough to do anything about the Syrian refugees who are already here and whom you claim are a terrorist risk, so why should anyone care what you want to do about the ones who are already in the screening process?

You're damn right you are irrelevant. You really don't care about any of this.

[ChumpDumper]

There were 12 Syrian refugees in Austin as of a month ago; there are probably more now and definitely more on the way.

What should I do to minimize my risk of being terrorist attacked by one of them?

[vy65]

It's about paying for what you break.

These are your words. I interpret that as guilt. You haven't given me an alternative explanation as to what this means.

However, this has nothing to do with you personally. Calling a position you've taken in this thread as guilt is not the same as an ad hominem attack, i.e., you calling me "tough" for no reason whatsoever.

I've only made this thread about the positions you've taken. You've pounced at the opportunity to make this personal.

Why can't you have a debate about something without making it personal?

[vy65]

As for the rest, you need a more substantive response that "ad hom" or "straw" if you want a reply.

I don't care enough to tell you what to do with your life. This thread was never about how Chump should deal with Syrian refugees. It was about the merits of the USFG allowing 100,000 Syrians into the country. Again, why do you feel the need to make this personal?

[ChumpDumper]

These are your words. I interpret that as guilt. You haven't given me an alternative explanation as to what this means.It's not guilt. I can't make you understand something so simple.


However, this has nothing to do with you personally. Calling a position you've taken in this thread as guilt is not the same as an ad hominem attack, i.e., you calling me "tough" for no reason whatsoever. I didn't call you tough. I said "tough" as in "tough shit."


I've only made this thread about the positions you've taken. You've pounced at the opportunity to make this personal.

Why can't you have a debate about something without making it personal?You made it personal and now your upset that it was turned on you. Tough shit.

Did you understand it this time?

[vy65]

You never explained what else it was. And when given the opportunity, you still didn't explain what it is.

If you had meant tough as in tough shit, why not say as much? Why leave it open?

You've successfully deflected from the topic once again in order to make a discussion personal. Why do you do that?

[ChumpDumper]

As for the rest, you need a more substantive response that "ad hom" or "straw" if you want a reply.Provide something more than an ad hom or a straw man and you will get something different.


I don't care enough to tell you what to do with your life. This thread was never about how Chump should deal with Syrian refugees. It was about the merits of the USFG allowing 100,000 Syrians into the country. Again, why do you feel the need to make this personal?The Syrian refugees are already here. Your whole argument is based on your fears of Syrian refugees. If the government doesn't rid us of this potential terrorist threat already in our country, what are we supposed to do?

What will you do if they remain?

This is a real question to you because you have stated a real personal fear of the Syrian refugees as potential terrorists. if they stay and the government doesn't make them go away, will you just post on a message board about them? Sign an online petition?

I personally will do the same thing I have done regarding the Syrians already here mere miles from me: nothing. I'm sure you will do the same.

[ChumpDumper]

You never explained what else it was. And when given the opportunity, you still didn't explain what it is.I already did. It is not my job to comprehend for you.


If you had meant tough as in tough shit, why not say as much? Why leave it open?I overestimated your ability to understand. I apologize.


You've successfully deflected from the topic once again in order to make a discussion personal. Why do you do that?Because you made it personal. Stop making it personal and it will stop being personal.

[vy65]

I already answered this long ago: More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?

I'm not having a personal conversation with you. If you want to get back on topic, let me know.

[ChumpDumper]

I already answered this long ago: More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?Opportunity to do what?


I'm not having a personal conversation with you. If you want to get back on topic, let me know.Then quit making it about me.

[vy65]

I already did. It is not my job to comprehend for you.

Then I'm asking you to re-clarify. Indulge me.


I overestimated your ability to understand. I apologize.

More personal attack. Why? I just want to have a civil conversation. I never insulted your ability to comprehend anything. Why do you feel the need to do so?


Because you made it personal. Stop making it personal and it will stop being personal.

I thought I already addressed this: However, this has nothing to do with you personally. Calling a position you've taken in this thread as guilt is not the same as an ad hominem attack, i.e., you calling me "tough" for no reason whatsoever.

[vy65]

Opportunity to do what?

Opportunity referred to come to the US. The "do what" refers to terrorism.

[ChumpDumper]

Then I'm asking you to re-clarify. Indulge me. Nope. you're done as far as comprehension goes.



More personal attack. Why? I just want to have a civil conversation. I never insulted your ability to comprehend anything. Why do you feel the need to do so?You felt the need to throw in multiple ad hominems and straw men. Clean up your own act.


I thought I already addressed this: However, this has nothing to do with you personally. Calling a position you've taken in this thread as guilt is not the same as an ad hominem attack, i.e., you calling me "tough" for no reason whatsoever.Tough is the last thing I would call you.

And it is an ad hominem. You really should look up the definition before you say things like that.

[ChumpDumper]

Opportunity referred to come to the US. The "do what" refers to terrorism.What is your evidence they will do the terrorism here?

[Winehole23]

Texas sues to the Feds to stop resettlement:


In a lawsuit filed Wednesday afternoon in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/ken-paxton/) claims the federal government and the International Rescue Committee — one of about 20 private nonprofits that have a state contract to resettle refugees in Texas — are violating federal law by moving forward with the planned resettlement of two Syrian families. One such family is expected to arrive in Texas as soon as Friday.


The lawsuit argues that the federal government and resettlement group have not fulfilled their contractual obligations to consult with, and provide information to, state officials.


It argues that federal officials violated the Refugee Act of 1980, which requires that the federal government “shall consult regularly” with the state regarding the placement of refugees. Texas also alleges that the International Rescue Committee violated a separate provision of the act requiring the nonprofit work “in close cooperation and advance consultation” with the state.



The suit, filed in the Dallas-based federal court, asks for a temporary injunction barring any Syrian refugees until terms of the contract are met.https://www.texastribune.org/2015/12/02/texas-sues-feds-over-syrian-refugees/

[boutons_deux]

Texas sues to the Feds to stop resettlement:

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/12/02/texas-sues-feds-over-syrian-refugees/

the dickless TX chickenshit bullies have just climbed down, proving they really don't have legal LEG to stand on!