gun control/mudslime immigration working out great for France again

[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…

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

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

Where did you get the 65,000 number from?

[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 deported

Why? 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 mad

How 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.

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, less 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 ed 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 ing 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 ing convenient.

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


"some mistakes"? Holy ing !

They weren't Repug "mistakes", they were criminal lies, murder, geopolitical neocon bull 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"- mother 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 ed up collective guilty conscience.

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.