Mother Jones advises Left to feign concern in regards to refugees
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones advises the left that they should at least pretend to be concerned about the possibility that some of those refugees that Obama wants to inflict upon us are terrorists and that they should stop mocking Republicans so they don’t appear to be unserious about national security;
Here’s the thing: to the average person, it seems perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of admitting Syrian refugees to the country. We know that ISIS would like to attack the US. We know that ISIS probably has the wherewithal to infiltrate a few of its people into the flood of refugees. And most voters have no idea how easy it is to get past US screening. They probably figure it’s pretty easy.
So to them it doesn’t seem xenophobic or crazy to call for an end to accepting Syrian refugees. It seems like simple common sense. After all, things changed after Paris.
Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
So the readers of Mother Jones begin mocking Drum and Republicans;
Marduk Kur Shogun1x • a day ago
Being scared of an Islamic suicide bomber in the US is not a reasonable concern.
It’s bedwetting cowardice in the face of a threat not sigificantly more likely to occur than getting hit by a meteorite.
mNEPATS52 4 hours ago
.
isis wants chaos.
.
just like american conservatives.
.
thanks for asking.Godbob • 2 hours ago
Finding a conservative with the ability to rationally discuss issues is the problem. Most of them are too ignorant to be able to express why they believe what they do. They just respond to trigger words and stimuli without any thinking… Dogs salivating at the sound of the bell.
Carol Smith • an hour ago
Hmmm . . . that sounds strangely familiar, much like the French aristocracy prior to the French Revolution, many of the “Tories” prior to the American Revolution, and exactly like the wealthy Confederates in the South prior to the Civil War. Things didn’t work out too well for those folks in the end, you and your conservative buddies might want to take note.
mNEPATS52 • 4 hours ago
.
terrorists want chaos.
.
that’s why conservatives are so excited.
.
that’s their goal too.
From there the discussion breaks into a diatribe about gun control and grammar. I’m pretty sure that these are the same types of people who blame Bush for 9-11=2001. They only worry about terrorism when it happens to them and they can’t see past the end of their noses. They’ll get serious about national security when Michael Moore tells them that it’s time.
Category: Liberals suck
DUmmies gonna be DUmmies.
May any attacks should they come, be aimed at leftist communists, and politicians and news media….it would be a wonderful improvement of America!!
No posts from Lars there? Or maybe uses a different handle there?
Judging from the comments they are just like their Presidential candidates and naming fellow Americans as the enemy.
So now the entire left is responsible for Kevin Drum’s opinion piece?
Approximately 65-70% of Americans oppose allowing Syrian refugees into the country. Which means a sizable portion of the left does as well.
Or maybe they just read Kevin’s article.
I support allowing the refugees in. And I think a lot of those opposing it are irrationally fearful assholes and bigots, holding an entire population responsible for the actions of less than 0.01%. We do not blame all Christians every time someone blows up an abortion clinic, and we do not blame all Christians for the actions of the KKK, or the Christian Identity movement, or the Lord’s Resistance Army, or the NLFT. Or any other Christian extremist.
There are some legitimate issues that should be discussed concerning handling the refugees and minimizing risk. But the vast majority of what I am reading from those opposing refugees is bullshit. A lot of it is outright propaganda.
And it should give pause that both ISIS and those that oppose Syrian refugees are in agreement on the issue.
[Click ad link. Achievement unlocked]
Well, every time a nutter uses a gun in this country to commit a horrendous act, you folks on the left blame an inanimate object first, then everyone who belongs to the NRA, then gun owners in general; so suck it up, buttercup. How does it feel to be painted with a broad brush?
I support guns rights. I think an armed population is part of our system of checks and balances.
So, not, I do not blame gun owners for the actions of a few.
Way to miss the point, Lars. You bitch because libs are being painted with a broad brush. Old Trooper merely reminded you that the political bloc with which you self-identify does the exact same thing to gun owners (which would apparently include YOU) every fucking day.
And look at their comments on MJ. Words like “vitriolic,” “hate,” “arrogant,” even “bigoted” come to mind. And have you noticed how often commenters on DU say things like how one day “my kind” will be “dealt with,” or how they hope for a new civil war, so that some shining liberal leader will have an excuse to send jackboots after gun owners, etc? Have you noticed? I have. Claymore gives us a list of such gems from the DUmbasses every Tuesday. For all your claims of how bad we are, you might want to check up on your own house once in a while.
That’d be too much responsibility for ol Lars here, to take on.
So you are justifying bigotry toward Muslims because liberals make assumptions about gun owners?
I did not miss the point. I should have just ignored the gun comment, because even if true it is a terrible argument to support denying vetted Syria refugees safe haven.
I justified nothing, Lars. I merely pointed out some hypocrisy, and the fact that your fellow travelers at DU openly advocate violence against those who don’t agree with them. Therefore, if you’re going to cast aspersions here, you’d better do the same there as well.
BTW, what I said is true. Just look at some of the comments made over at DU.
You support it?
Good. They’ll be camping on your couch then.
“And it should give pause that both ISIS and those that oppose Syrian refugees are in agreement on the issue.”
ISIS is against refugees being allowed in the USA?
They want there to be a backlash against Muslim immigrants. A
Then, logically, ISIS should be in favor of the US (and the West in general) accepting refugees – and make an active attempt to infiltrate the movement, then have their agents commit acts of terrorism. That would virtually guarantee a backlash, no?
In fact, it’s kinda like what happened in France the other day – and since.
Open your eyes, naive and feckless one.
Perdiod, dot, bingo.
“I do not support allowing the refugees in. And I think a lot of those supporting it are irrationally liberal assholes and elitists, welcoming an entire population they know absolutely nothing about.”
There, Lars, fixed it for ya.
“I’m not against all Nazi’s, just the extremist Nazi’s.”
Not sure where I read that but I found it amusing.
Nice one.
So now the entire left is responsible for Kevin Drum’s opinion piece?
Nope. But the commenters at the site are responsible for their opinions. Those opinions are clearly the majority and clearly left leaning.
But in case you missed it:
Pew poll: Between 63 million and 287 million ISIS supporters in just 11 countries
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/pew_poll_between_63_million_and_287_million_isis_supporters_in_just_11_countries.html
Now one would think that there is no way that number could be so high, but it is.
What is surprising is that the support is that high even though ISIS acts against the tenants of Islam according to Islamic scholars. ( http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/ )
So while the left sometimes does not blame Christians for the acts of some that are contrary to Christian beliefs, the left does blame all legal gun owners for the illegal acts of some who illegally have a gun.
Furthermore, the “support” and “blame” game takes a different turn when a self proclaimed “Christian” blows up an abortion clinic, the hew and cry from Christians is loud, long and prayerful. You won’t find the same percentage of Christians supporting non-Christian acts in the name of Christ as you will find Muslims supporting self proclaimed Muslims in what may very well be acts that are contrary to the Muslim faith.
If you want to bring up support and blame as an argument, you are going to have to do much much better than you have done here.
287 million? Define “support”… that sounds suspiciously high
Not necessarily. Pew Research put the Muslim population of the world in 2014 at around 1.6 billion; it’s higher now. So if only 2 Muslims out of 11 support ISIS, that’s still over 290 million.
It would not surprise me to find that 1 in 5 Muslims worldwide is indeed somewhat fundamentalist, thinks the West is sinful and decadent, and at least partially supports ISIS’ stated plans to establish a revived Caliphate.
I can see maybe 300 million Islamists in general, but the specific term was ‘287 million ISIS suppporters’ – considering all the different flavors of Islamists and how many are more territorialists (Hamas etc.) who seem to be similar to what we used to call “convenient Christians” I think the actual number of ISIS supporters who actively contribute specific finances and suppot is probably far lower. Still a depressingly nasty number if there are 2 million of them! but that would be ‘way less than 287 million. Not arguing the point, just the probable scope.
David,
The number does seem high because the upper end includes those who “”don’t know” whether or not they have a favorable opinion of the Islamist group.”
In other words, the lower number is solid for those who support ISIS and the upper number includes those who are unsure. I would call them in the “Edmund Burke” class. (“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”)
But this survey was only of 11 countries. Expanded to include all countries, the numbers are staggering.
In addition, in a case of competing studies / surveys, in July of this year, the Clarion Project (http://www.clarionproject.org/) released a report saying there were 42 million supporters of ISIS worldwide.
(source: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/587951/Islamic-State-ISIS-Muslims-jihad-Iraq-Syria-Clarion-Project-terrorism)
That means that given the lower number reported by Pew for 11 countries is larger than the number reported for all countries a mere 6 months ago.
OK, now you’re just offensive! Are you claiming that 65-70 percent of the American population that opposes allowing Syrian refugees into this country are fucking RACIST? Are you retarded?
Here I thought you claimed you were an intelligence analyst or something.
I wrote a piece yesterday that explains the national security concerns from someone who… you know… actually works in national security.
http://thelibertyzone.com/2015/11/17/some-thoughts-on-refugees/
The biggest problem is the lack of assets to perform the vetting procedures. We had intel analysts and FBI on the ground in Iraq, which is why the fingerprints from the two Iraqi terrorists who entered this country were picked up. They were on some unexploded IEDs back there. What do we have in Syria to run checks on those who want to enter this country? U.S. counterterrorism officials have expressed concerns that they don’t have the resources in Syria to vet them effectively. There’s a civil war there. You think there are computer systems there that contain comprehensive background information on those seeking asylum? Are there intelligence officers on the ground to collect intel? Are there U.S. forces on the ground to examine fingerprints and other biometric data? The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Nicholas Rasmussen, told the House Homeland Security Committee that this was definitely a concern. DNI Clapper and FBI both expressed concerns.
You want to call them racist too, you fucking dick weasel?
“And I think a lot of those opposing it are irrationally fearful assholes and bigots, holding an entire population responsible for the actions of less than 0.01%”
I said “a lot” not “all” and I said “bigots” not “racists”.
And I stand by what I said.
Oh, gee – are you trying to claim that bigotry doesn’t include racism?
You stand by what you said, because you’re a stubborn, arrogant shit slurper,
He’s just parroting the talking points his professors at Berkeley taught him, Nicki. He hasn’t quite mastered the definitions (and implications) of some of the words yet.
You see that ring on Lars’ back? It’s attached to a string. Pull it and he says whatever he’s told to say.
Like having a conversation with a fucking turnip.
Meanwhile….I’m having a full fledged identity crisis.
Have you gone full potato? 😉
Dave’s been pushing those Freedom Fries on me.
He has several problems, Nicki.
1- He thinks he’s the only person in the whole world who knows anything about anything.
2- He thinks that anyone else who actually works in some area like intelligence doesn’t know nearly as much as he does.
3 – He doesn’t know what you actually do and DON’T tell him. It’s much more fun to watch him make a public ass of himself.
I don’t say what I do in public fora anyway, so he can sit and spin. But it is amusing to watch him pretend to be an expert!
He claimed he was an intelligence analyst, it’s obvious from what he’s posted here that Lars is not an intelligent analyst.
How much do I piss you off?
How much do I piss off the members of this board?
How much do you think I pissed off my commanders and supervisors over my career?
The thing that kept me in my job was that I was good at it.
Last post to you for the night. Somewhere out there is a song writer who knows you Lars.
Being an intelligence analyst, and being intelligent are two different things. Being intelligent, and knowing the truth while acting in accordance to the truth are separate. Being confident leaves one prone to acting incompetently. I know some awful smart people do some awful stupid shit.
Whatever helps you sneak up on the mirror in the morning. If you were an intelligent analyst, you have yet to prove it.
BTW, I don’t give you enough thought for you to piss me off.
I certainly won’t call you a racist – I understand that people who oppose this are most often motivated by the very real issue of security. No problem, I completely understand that – it’s a laudable goal.
For me, however, security isn’t an absolute. We always balance it with other factors – notably the freedoms we have, and in this case, the moral question of at what cost do we try to offer freedom and safety to people fleeing for their lives from these monsters in ISIS? And the answer to that isn’t cut and dry and will vary person to person, and with how they evaluate the risks involved.
For me, I’m of the opinion that life is never without risks – and small risks are worth taking when the alternative is morally questionable. So I’m in favor of taking in refugees because I feel, on the whole, it’s a difficult choice but the right one.
I can completely understand someone making the argument that taking in refugees is morally questionable because doing so risks lives which the people deciding on this course of action have no right to risk. But again, from my point of view, that risk is low enough that I feel it’s acceptable.
Also, as an ideological point, I prefer actions that are chosen without regard to fear over ones that are.
That’s my perspective as a sometimes-liberal person. Imperfect and uncertain, and yes, riskier, especially in the short term, but still worth doing. But I don’t fault anyone for understandably feeling differently.
Perfect.
And it took how many to knock down the WTC Towers and slap into the Pentagon not to mention the 1993 WTC truck bomb attack. So, tell me how many it’d take to bring shit to grinding halt one more time.
If we had some sort of magical shield that meant we were immune to the presence of terrorists except for those whom we let past our borders, you could make the argument that the increased risk of taking in refugees is huge. We’d go from zero risk to some risk, and I think it’s possible to argue that’s unacceptable. Unfortunately, we’re at war with both terrorists and their ideology, which breeds terrorists. And we can’t close our borders to an ideology. Consequently, we already have terrorists here. How many? I have no idea. Any attempt to quantify that will depend heavily on whether we count only violent, active terrorist cells, or include sympathizers, or people who are at high risk of radicalization, etc. The point is, to me, we aren’t at zero risk, we’re already at high risk – right now, there are people here plotting horrible attacks. And thus the increased risk from potential bad actors in the refugees is a relatively small delta to the risk we already face – and thus outweighed by the ability to do some good for people who are at risk from these same ISIS assholes. Again, if you feel the risk from the refugees greatly increases the risks we face here at home, I understand if you weigh those factors differently. For me, it’s a small risk vs. an ability to do what’s right, so I’m going to opt for doing what is right. And the second part of that is that as I said above, I prefer not to let fear dictate my actions. If we’re afraid of bad actors in the refugees because ISIS has said they will try to sneak some in, and we let the fear of that rather than an objective risk analysis dictate our actions, what happens the next time they threaten something? If they say they’re going to poison our bacon supply, do I stop eating it out of fear? They may target sporting events, do we suspend NFL games? What if they decide to target our elections, do we not vote? I think ultimately… Read more »
We kind of do have that magical shield. It called the Atlantic Ocean. Keeping them on that side of it, helps keep my family safe on this side.
And that is just my opinion.
May I offer a few thoughts, not adversarial in nature but probing. Let us express the change in risk as ΔR. If any particular threat varies in its severity and how vulnerable we are to it then we can express your hypothesis as follows where F is the resistance to fear:
ΔR = T*S*V
F
That seems straight forward enough. Let us calibrate our threat, severity, vulnerability, and fear on a scale of 1 through 10 with ten being the highest risk. Inversely let us use the same scale for probability. At what value is the Delta R an acceptable increase? If we increase our resistance to fear high enough we can reduce R to a negligible number.
Whereas, if you remove the emotional component all together the reality of Delta R will change directly upon the remaining values. If an increase in R represented 10 lives per value increase, how many lives are you willing to sacrifice? I think we both agree that allowing refugees under the current circumstances will most certainly increase the value of R.
I will even grant you that capitulating to fear is unacceptable. How do you determine the number of lives lost with an acceptable value? There will be some lost, I set the value ar any number less than 1,000 lives. That would be an acceptable number of dead Americans to send the proper message that I am not caving to fear. Just my thoughts, if we are going to think all this through, what is your acceptable number for ΔR?
Damn good starting point for serious analysis, DH. Two minor suggestions regarding same.
1. Those who deal with risk generally define the risk posed by an event as a product: the probability of that event occurring at all, multiplied by the severity of the consequences of that event occurring. (R = P x C). You allude to that above, but don’t state it outright. Stating that up front would provide a more standard frame of reference for your argument.
2. I would regard the change in public fear as one component of the consequences of a terrorist attack vice a separate item in and of itself. I see at least 5 components to those consequences:
a. loss of those killed/permanently disabled;
b. immediate physical damage (e.g., destroyed buildings, roads, injured who will recover, etc . . . );
c. lost future economic productivity from damage to infrastructure, recovery of the injured, cost of replacement of damaged/destroyed items, etc . . . .;
d. changes in policies driven by the event; and
e. changes in public attitudes and norms (fear fits in here).
The latter two are frankly those that worry me the most.
Just my $0.02 worth. Again, IMO damn good work.
My actuarial analysis is limited by what information I could ascertain from the Baron’s Guide to the GED.
The inclusion of F will only manifest itself it terms of perceived threat as opposed to actual threat in real terms.
Arguably however, F can be completely negated with F/F as defined by Churchill.
If we are admitting a real value of known risks into the country, at what point do we chart a diminishing return from that increase in terms of American lives?
I guess “if we save one life, then isn’t it worth it?” went right out the window…
That only applies to seat belts, car seats, smoking, helmets, and the like.
We are only talking about terrorism here. Geeez.
Policy changes and public attitudes/norms are the hardest changes to quantify, and IMO to measure reliably.
IMO the problem overall falls into the category of problems whose “nom de jure” in academia is “wicked problems”. Those problems have no obvious solutions, and in fact may well have NO good solutions. They literally seem to be choices between bad outcomes only.
Err too much on the side of “helping refugees”, and you risk allowing hundreds to be killed (OKC only took two guys, some common items, and a rental truck). Err on the side of excessive caution, and we risk an unwanted (and IMO, ill-advised) fundamental change in US society.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that public opinion/attitudes/norms as well as future government policy play a large role. The former is hard to measure accurately; the latter, often impossible to foresee accurately (there are always unintended consequences, which seem to be nearly exclusively bad ones).
In short: we’re flying blind. The best we can do is take our best guess and execute. I’d argue for a substantial caution here, since we know that there are major problems in vetting claims of, “I’m a legit refugee”.
But I could easily be wrong. My crystal ball is dirty today.
I concur, again if we chart an x,y analysis of Freedoms v Threat Defense that point of diminishing return intersects rather quickly by my scale.
As expressed by me constatly, “If the price of protecting Freedom is Freedom itself, what is the point?”
DH: with respect to most governmental policies, I fully agree with you. We need to weigh clearly the risks to US citizens vice the potential benefits of actions. We cannot eliminate risk.
That said, the recent Syrian “refuge crisis” – like the recent Ebola epidemic – are prime examples of the US government acting recklessly. The US government’s primary responsibility is to its citizens – NOT to “do good in the world”. IMO, admitting ANY Syrian refugees (and we do have the option to refuse to accept ANY refugees, either now or permanently) when we cannot adequately vet their background and/or potential ties to ISIS and/or other terrorist groups – is both foolish and reckless. Why? Because it risks the lives of US citizens with essentially no corresponding benefit to the US other than to make a few people “feel good about themselves”.
Admitting Syrian refugees gains us no respect internationally – Europe is now rethinking their own decision to accept massive numbers of Syrian refugees, and the rest of the world is clear-headed enough to see the danger. It also buys us little goodwill in the ME. Most there are currently predisposed to view the US negatively, and admitting a relative handful of refugees while standing by and watching slaughter won’t gain us any significant number of friends. Finally, those admitted as refugees are – based on my observations over the last 30 years or so – highly unlikely to assimilate into US society. Instead, they’ll almost certainly form an insular community within US society that does not share US values and norms, and whose primary loyalty is not necessarily to the US.
In short, admitting Syrian refugees today is a risk where the expected gain is far outweighed by the potential loss if one guesses wrong – and taking that risk is unnecessary. That is the definition of a foolish risk; one who willingly takes such risk is indeed a fool.
Wow Dave. I can’t talk in deltas, much less type in them. My gut reaction to what LC had to say was that risk mitigation is not fear based. It is a cost benefits analysis, based on intelligence, reason, data, and extrapolation. Thanks for channeling your inner nerd and posting an equation.
I replied at the end of the thread; it seemed easier than squeezing things into ever-narrowing columns in replies.
It’s also not a full answer, but the best I had time for today. I’ll try to write my own take, with numbers and sources, soon.
Both of you left out something important: awareness, caution, and common sense. Regardless of the percentage of at-risk terror candidates in a homogeneous population group of refugees, if the general US population is oriented toward awareness of surroundings, caution when dealing with strangers, and a high degree of common sense, the possibility of bad things happening is decreased. I think we see a lot of hyperawareness after the fact, and then it fades.
Paranoia toward strangers is not necessary, but caution is. Alertness for your own safety in any place is perfectly acceptable. It’s common sense that seems to not be in use most of the time, which is why someone on a taxiing plane will over-react to another passenger, who LOOKS suspicious because he is simply looking at a news report on a smartphone.
When you figure out how to improve the common sense factor in the general populace, you may solve the entire problem. It can’t be done with computer projections or extensive interviews or files of biometrics.
Let’s just call it a bad neighborhood, and you don’t go out running in it at 2AM unless you have no common sense. I think kids who run from stranger danger have a whole lot better grasp of common sense that anyone who thinks computer programs and files will solve the problem, because those techy things only give you numbers. They will NOT tell you who the real bad guys are.
There has been some very interesting research into the topic in recent years. Some researchers suggest an expanded version of the fight-or-flight response, namely, “freeze, flight, fight, or fright” in avoidance behaviors is a result of evolutionary mechanisms.
For example, people that heard the rustling of high grass and tended to flee had a higher survival rate than those who investigated the cause.
The most highly successful serial killers did not overtly display behavior that was perceived as a threat.
Even in this most recent event in Paris, previous friends and the man who let them use his apartment clearly stated they had no indication these people were a threat.
The same holds true with the 9/11 attackers. An individual that appears as the typical Islamic terrorist is easy enough to spot and less of a threat. The most effective and devastating threats come from those who are not perceived as a threat.
Sorry, I can only keep my knuckles from dragging so long. I am going to count ammo for a while.
So what is the acceptable ratio of refugees to terrorists? 100 refugees to 1 terrorist allowed into the US? 10 refugees to 1 terrorist? 1,000 refugees to 1 terrorist? Just trying to get a baseline here.
Thanks for stopping at the headline before writing your comment, Lars. That’s not even what the post is about.
I should have chosen my words more carefully. This is really the sentiment I was responding to;
“They only worry about terrorism when it happens to them and they can’t see past the end of their noses. They’ll get serious about national security when Michael Moore tells them that it’s time.”
I should have said “so the whole left is responsible for what is on that page?”
Then rest was describing that even the left is has a fairly large group that oppose taking Syrian refugees.
I explained my position because I knew that if I didn’t people would think I was contradicting myself by implying I opposed refugees.
Sorry, John.
No, you should have just shut the fuck up. Nobody on this site is interested in your Schlong-clone child speak. Find a blog where pseudo-intellectual misfits clamor together in a mental pit of head bangers. You are contradicting the sanctity of those who think favorably of this country. Most of whom served for the freedom to live without fear of foreign invaders being invited here to destroy us. Look at how few it took to destroy right at 3,000 lives in New York. Let me clarify this for you asshole. I’m one of your so-called “irrational fearful assholes” who chooses not to let even a few at-risk invaders settle here. Do you even have a clue how much we taxpayers are going to have to cough up every year to support a bunch of people unable and unwilling to work? No, you don’t give a shit about anything but your grandiose vision of bringing in as many more bottom feeders (who don’t speak our language) as possible that we have to support. Let ’em all in and stay at your home, and camp out in your back yard, and you feed them.
Truth of the matter is you don’t take a hint L. Taylor. You are as full of shit as EVERY damned poser outed on this web site. Why don’t you and Schlong (assuming Schlong is someone other than
you) just move on down the road. You’ve shit in your own bed now labeling those who disagree with you about the immigration issue and called them assholes….F__k off you retard. Stop using so much of the air we have to breathe. Go jump in the lake and spend time with other bottom feeders known as carp. Live among the leeches you make me think of.
The ‘ol Christians blowing up abortion clinics “every time” argument.
I think we should allow refugees in but vett them all. They get visitors visas allowing them to stay. Visas require maintaining their up to date residence and employment information. If they are found to commit any crimes beyond simple traffic violation or municipal ordinances, or report any false information (such as a false address, or false place of employment) they are sent back.
Single men under 40 without Children and without disability should not be allowed in except in cases of high skilled workers with demonstrated professional experiences.
I am also in support of offering adult refugees under the age of 40 the opportunity to be sent back to fight ISIS as a US/EU sponsored force, or work for US or allied nation intelligence.
Because no refugee has ever lied…nooooooo.
the vetting process is pretty damn thorough and has more than an interview. And I know someone who did interviews and the interviews are more than thorough than the subject interview for a TS clearance and they also interview family and cross reference the information with to find discrepancies in history, dates, and routes of travel.
It also includes records checks with law enforcement and intelligence databases.
Wrong again Skippy! Not that SIMPLE!
If you knew what I knew, all of your type would be hiding in a rabbit hole right now!
CBS reported on the vetting process a few days ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-the-syrian-refugee-vetting-process/
“The process for any refugee begins with the processing of biographic information (such as an applicant’s name and date of birth) and biometric information (such as fingerprints). The information is checked against databases in several different U.S. agencies including the FBI, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
If an applicant has applied for an overseas visa in the past, their biometric information should be on record. It can be used to ensure that the applicant has had a consistent story about the circumstances that prompted them to seek asylum.
After that, applicants go through a lengthy, in-person interview process overseas. The interviews are conducted by specially-trained DHS officers who spend at least eight weeks learning skills like how to question applicants and test their credibility. These adjudicators receive special training for interviewing refugees from Iraq or Syria.”
Just how much biometric information do you think they’ll be able to get from a wartorn nation? Just how much intel do you think they’ll be able to exploit? And if the identity documents are false – easy to get (one forger in Turkey got a hold of a bunch of blank Syrian passports and has been handing them out to anyone with money), there wouldn’t be any information on these folks, now would there? You have to have somewhere to glean information FROM. You have to have had some kind of interaction with law enforcement to have been included in a database. A false identity would not have had said interactions, and therefore, no record would come back.
And, oh, by the way… any information they have on these refugees will likely come from the Asad administration – the same Asad whom the Administration considers the apex of evil.
Yeah… real stringent.
The interview doesn’t mean shit and it is disingenuous of you to bring it up. The BI is what matters. In the US a BI has lots of resources to work with – good government, judicial, school and medical records; friends and neighbors to talk to, and lots of investigative resources – FBI, local police, and so forth. At this time I am not convinced that we have an equivalent or even similar capability when it comes to refugees from Syria or other parts of the middle east. I am prepared to be convinced either way but so far I haven’t seen the evidence that we can do a good job.
Point two. You said, “And I think a lot of those opposing it are irrationally fearful assholes and bigots, holding an entire population responsible for the actions of less than 0.01%.”
Thanks for the insult asshole. I wish to focus on “fearful”. In a few minutes, 3 guys killed about 90 people and wounded about that many more with gunfire. There was no one to protect those people. I have a family and one of my responsibilities is to protect them. Fear is my body telling me to wake the f*ck up and pay attention. If this shit in Paris doesn’t make you afraid for your family then there is something clinically physically wrong with you. When you take the position that there is nothing to fear then you are talking nonsense. This nonsense is not something to be ignored, it is something to be countered.
The interview is huge with refugees. Especially with families or people that have traveled with the subject, even people that are not related to the subject but happened to have been in the same vessel can provide information.
It is all they have, that doesn’t make it huge. It doesn’t pass the sniff test.
ISIS has stated that they think that people who leave Syria are traitors and apostates because they are choosing not to live in the perfect Islamic State. On the other hand, what a wonderful opportunity to send wolves with the sheep.
Getting people into the US as refugees is harder than paying a coyote to walk them across the border. “Papieren Bitte!” (unexpectedly interacting with US officials or law enforcement) is the only issue if they elect to come in that way and, in most cases, that is no real issue either. There are 11 million people living here who have that problem and it doesn’t seem to slow them down very much.
“Single men under 40 without Children and without disability should not be allowed in except in cases of high skilled workers with demonstrated professional experiences.”
I thought in one of your unibomber screeds the other day about economics and the free flow of labor, etc. you stated our economy needs UNSKILLED labor.
//confused
[Click ad link. Achievement unlocked]
And another thing, Lars… who the fuck are you to impose limits on the basic human right to migrate? You shitbag.
Just in case anyone is having a “WTF moment” regarding GDC’s comment above:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=62049&cpage=1#comment-2684283
Thanks Hondo. But when it comes to WTF moments, I am no Dave Hardin. 😉
Refugee status is different. International treaty requires we provide safe shelter, food, and care to refugees if we accept them.
Saudi Arabia has set up accommodations for over 100,000 of them but no takers. Remember when the first hordes of them reached Germany and immediately began to demand that they cease celebrating Oktoberfest? In other places they’ve demanded sharia law, something that already exists in Saudi Arabia my roach turd-brained ass pickle!
Actually, that was a douchebag in the Netherlands, whom no one took seriously. The petition mentioned that refugees coming in from Syria and Iraq might be offended, but this wasn’t the refugees themselves.
Let’s make sure we get our facts straight. Otherwise, we’ll never hear the end of it from this shitbag.
Irrelevant. That doesn’t alter the fact that you appear to have disavowed your previous inane position that there is some kind of “right to migrate”.
Care to expound on that apparent flip-flop on your part?
Our economy does not need unskilled labor. I never said that.
I said free flow of labor will improve the negotiating power and wages of labor on both sides of the border.
I am fine with border checks and background checks on labor immigrants. What we have now is a complete industry controlled process that essentially only allows industry to influence who gets in legally.
That is a different issue than Syrian refugees. Who are not coming here as workers and we will be required by international treaty to provide them with aid and support for having accepted them.
Thus we have a right to determine who we grant refugee status.
Immigration policies are not one size fits all. Policies with respect to the flow of labor are different than those awarding refugee status and accepting treaty obligations to the care of refugees.
Here’s what you said.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=62788&cpage=1#comment-2721032
Maybe I did misinterpret your statements. I must admit I nodded off once or twice before I finished reading it. However; why import educated professional workers that will compete with our own college grads thus driving down wages (if you agree with the basic principles of supply and demand, and I’m not sure that you do)?
I mean we need to invest in our labor force so that fewer Americans are competing in the international low skill labor pool for jobs.
Pinky, you are ten times more confused than a a Battalion of blindfolded lesbians in a fish market!!
ok kid.
Oh, dear God, give me patience.
Lard, you fathead, you just contradicted yourself again. It’s deja vu all over again.
First you say ‘our economy does not need unskilled labor’, here http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=62856&cpage=1#comment-2726961
Now you say ‘low skill labor pool’. There’s little to NO difference between ‘unskilled labor’ and ‘low skill labor’. They are all pretty much things like cutting lettuce and celery on produce farms, being a ‘SLOW’ traffic sign wielder on a road construction crew, emptying ash trays and sweeping floors in high-rise office buildings in major cities.
I mean, SOMEONE has to do those unsavory jobs like sorting potatoes – wait, there are machines that do that more accurately and faster. Okay, candling eggs – no, wait, machines do that more accurately. I’ve got it: selling T-shirts outside a Styxx concert.
Geezo Pete, could you just once get a grip on reality?
These are answers to question and the context of the question fucking matters.
“We don’t need unskilled labor” in the context is “we do not need MORE” unskilled labor.
I recognize their are jobs for unskilled laborers in the economy but we have too many low skilled laborers competing for too few low skilled jobs and lost skilled American laborers have to compete with low skilled labor in other markets due to the exportation of jobs.
I was arguing to the need to invest in education for our labor pool so there are fewer low skilled laborers. With fewer low skilled laborers there will still be sufficient laborers to meet the low skilled demand in our society.
Stop being a pain in the ass about this shit. Scouring for any pedantic our of context things you can to nitpick my posts.
I am answering 5 or six people at the same time often and often the threads shape into different context so you can’t necessarily take phrase out of context and claim ti contradicts something I said in another answer because it is usually just a misunderstanding of what I was trying to explain and the two contexts are not the same.
Our economy has a need for low skilled labor. But we have more than enough low skilled labor. So we do not NEED low skilled workers.
PINKY-Lars, you’re more fucked up than a gay black Jewish transsexual NeoNazi in the KKK!
ok kid.
Taylor: if you wish people to quit “nitpicking” your comments, how about you proofread them first – along with ceasing acting like some omniscient sage. You’re not.
It’s quite obvious that you’re not anywhere near the most capable or intelligent person commenting here. And it’s equally obvious that you’re oblivious to that reality, and have incredible delusions of grandeur. You should instead be worrying about being “adequate to perform your assigned tasks” in the future.
In short: be more careful in what you write, and quit acting like a smug a-hole. I predict you’ll find doing that leads to better treatment – both here, and in life.
Lars doesn’t contradict himself! He’s just “nuanced!” According to him, anyway.
You keep acting like I am being superior with my tone. I do not call people morons any more often than I am called one on this board.
There is a distinct mutual lack of respect for the positions and intellect of the other on this board. And this board is one of the least objective board I have ever participated on. In fact one of the subject categories on this board is “liberals suck.”
And the blanket statements about the idiocy, cowardice, “pussy-ness’, and countless other negative associations toward liberals and democrat are far more pervasive and persistent than any other sentiment about any other group. Hell, this board disparages liberals more than it disparages people that steal valor.
I had read this comments on this board for months before I ever posted. I knew going in that this board would have zero respect for my position and by the time I first posted I had come to have little respect for the constant anti-liberal rhetoric of most of the commenters. Especially since so many were clearly very poorly informed but being informed is irrelevant. What matters is if what you say generally disparages the left. Then, regardless of how ignorant or baseless the position, other members of the board would express support.
“Intelligence” on this board is much more often evaluated by how much people agree with the person than the merits of what they are saying.
If this community did not have a significant lack of capacity to recognize intelligence when they dealt with it they would be able to recognize that Obama is an exceedingly intelligent president whether you agree with his politics or not.
Positions here are not evaluated on merit. Positions are evaluated by how closely what someone says reflects then preconceived assumptions and rigid system of beliefs of the readers.
I stopped reading the blah, blah after this: “Hell, this board disparages liberals more than it disparages people that steal valor.”
Well, the valor thieves get theirs but they are, after all, just thieves, pretenders and embellishers. The liberals–progressive/marxist/commie bastards like yourself, Lars–are a real and present danger to the nation. You and yours gave us the Scrotum Shaver who is directly and indirectly hurting the country inside and out. So, yeah, fuck you and yours.
Thanks for supporting the claims I made in my post.
Tell us about non-refoulement oh great one.
Obama is a lazy fuck who has never done an honest day’s work in his life. He started campaigning for POTUS the minute he got to WDC. Didn’t stick around long enough get acquainted with anyone important. In fact, he was out the door on the campaign trail so, papers flew up in his wake. He is NOT particularly intelligent nor is he able to speak without a script. His only asset is that he looks good in a suit. Everything he has EVER done has been scripted, and everything he claims was handed to him without his having to work for it.
“He is NOT particularly intelligent nor is he able to speak without a script. His only asset is that he looks good in a suit. Everything he has EVER done has been scripted, and everything he claims was handed to him without his having to work for it.”
I agree with you on the suit.
The evidence is that Obama’s IQ is in the 130-140 range based on his LSAT score. And also supported by other academic achievements and studies of his ability to communicate (no he is not always scripted).
The scripted claim is flat bullshit.
He also did not have “everything handed to him.” He got into Harvard based on his LSAT score. That is not exactly “handed” to someone. Harvard generally takes people from disadvantaged backgrounds that score well on LSATs. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard putting him in the top 10% of his Law School classes. So unless you are going to argue that 90% of his classmates conspired to underperform him I would say his gradating in the top 10% is one hell of an achievement.
It also empirically disproves your claim that he is a “lazy fuck” since the workload at Harvard law is notoriously rigorous. It is easy to graduate at the bottom of the class but it is hard as hell and takes a ton of work to be at the top of the class.
Tell us about Magna Cum Non-Refoulement oh great one.
IQ 130-140? There is no # to # score. It’s a flat score.
Mine is higher than his and yours put together.
When an IQ score is estimated based on an LSAT score it is estimated as a range.
And, no, you are not higher than us both put together. I am higher than 99.9% the population. So you being more then he and I put together is mathematically impossible. It would be mathematically impossible if he and I were merely both above average. Since it is a score associated with a percentile ranking.
Lars, maybe you don’t realize it, but your posts frequently tend to come off sounding very holier-than-thou. You also practice a double standard when it comes to credibility. If somebody here relates personal knowledge or a direct account of someone we know who’s involved with the subject, you dismiss it as anecdotal. But when it’s you or someone you know, we are supposed to take it as Gospel. There’s also your rather spotty record for citing sources for some of your more controversial claims. You also frequently and annoyingly jump to conclusions about racism/bigotry. You’ve accused me of it on more than one occasion, despite the fact that I said nothing racist and/or bigoted, then turn around and pontificate about “dumb rednecks.”
There’s also the fact that you display a (possibly pathological) inability to admit that you could possibly be wrong about anything. This was perfectly illustrated by Dave Hardin’s “Road House” reference. You didn’t get it, and tried to claim that Dave Hardin was a rapist and felon (he’s neither). But when your error was pointed out, you tried to argue it. You could have laughed it off with, “Ok, I get it now,” but instead you came back with some crap about how he “channeled” it rather than referencing it. You dug the hole deeper because you couldn’t admit to being wrong, and made a complete ass of yourself over something ridiculously trivial.
And maybe you haven’t been paying attention, but on the rare occasion that I either agree with you or at least feel that you brought up a good point, I have acknowledged it and given you credit. You can dispute that, but it would make you a liar, as a quick review of some TAH threads will prove.
I will readily admit that I can be an asshole. But I rarely get that way without some kind of provocation.
The reason I said he “channeled it” was because it was not actually a quote from the movie. It was just similar to the quote.
And when I dismissed it he did double down with the stuff about the men’s room.
So, if he was not serious then I was wrong.
But is sure as hell seemed like some insane shit to me.
My sanity has been wildly debated, even among highly trained professionals employed by the U.S. Government.
Reluctantly, they gave me this piece of paper to hang on the wall that implies I am qualified to fuck with other peoples heads.
Go figure, their standards are slipping. For the record Mr. Taylor your are perfectly safe to use the mens room with or without me.
And I never said it was a quote. I said it was a reference to the movie, which it is. You’re kinda proving my point for me here.
Cross border wage negotiations? I hope you’re not in a management position for a business because there are a lot of employees that’d likely be knocking on your office door wanting to know what happened to their dollar. Wages are down already, COLA’s and hourly wage rates are not keeping up with utilities, fuel, groceries and rents as it is.
We have a hard enough time getting illegal aliens that are know criminals out of this country. Here’s a link to some “words of encouragement” (courtesy of Ace of Spades HQ – a SMART MILITARY BLOG) from people in the administration:
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=360149
Just another opportunity for the Government and bodaprez to fuck up…
Yeah right, just look at how well the Federal Government does everything else, little Pinky!! Answer me this, my candyassed little butt-fluffer, WHO carried out the 9/11 attacks, the Paris attacks, and nearly EVERY act of terrorism in between, was it:
A. Santa Claus on meth
B. The Easter Bunny on cocaine
C. Elvis impersonators on LSD
D. Muslim males
THINK HARD, little rudy-poo!
ok kid.
How you answer the question, oh infallible one?
The answer is not on the list. 90% of domestic terrorism is not committed by Islamic extremists.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619
Nationalist and right wing separatists commit most of the act of terror in the EU.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/te-sat-2014-european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2014
And since 9/11 Islamic terrorists killed 37 people in the US. About 300 were killed by all acts of terror by all terror groups in the US. And about 500,000 were murdered in by non terror related crimes and violence.
During that time there were over 3000 hate crimes committed agains Muslims and another 4000 committed against Jews, by mostly white American perpetrators.
Answer the question, asshole.
I was going to ignore the question because it was asked by the person I regard as the biggest idiot on the board and it was asked in a way that war more asshat trolling than a legitimate question.
But, if you are going to demand an answer you should check to see if the answer you expect is the answer that the ACTUAL FACTS support.
90% of acts of domestic terrorism are not committed by Islamic terrorist groups.
The question was not limited to “domestic” terrorism, Taylor. Quit trying to change the subject.
Now, how about you answer the question?
http://youtu.be/MLEpZm957jk
There are likely very few terrorists hiding among the waves of refugees clamoring to enter this country. That said… how many will it take to launch an attack? There were six of them in Paris.
The aim of terrorism is to foment terror, and while mass murder is useful for them, it’s not the ultimate goal. So how many would it take?
This is not about the refugees per se. They’re mostly likely innocent people. But if a terrorist is using them as a trojan horse to enter this nation and wreak havoc, guess what! It’s the primary function of a government to protect its fucking citizens, which is awfully difficult if you don’t have the intel to actually vet these people properly.
There were a lot more than six. The six who carried out the attack were the tip of the spear but a successful attack like this one requires a lot of support. Somebody smuggled in the guns, somebody assembled the explosive vests, somebody procured transportation, somebody reconned infil routes (no exfil needed on a suicide mission), somebody provided a place to sleep and food for the attackers, etc. Most of those people are probably not ‘shooters.’
France has a large, unassimilated Muslim population that is an enclave within the country and within that enclave, it would be fairly easy for the attackers to move around and do their planning.
Without a large, disenfranchised and sympathetic “sea” in which to “swim”, a terrorist would have a much tougher time planning such an attack.
There’s a proportional relationship between the amount of planning and logistics that needs to be done and the amount of actual destruction a terrorist can do. One or two men, for example, could easily obtain weapons and ammo and go on a shooting spree at a shopping mall, but the amount of damage they could do would likely be limited.
OTOH, a coordinated attack at multiple sites involving shooters and bombers requires a lot of planning and organizing and it’s the planning and organizing that usually tips off the cops. The terrorists were able to do it in France, again, because they have a large population of muslims who are concentrated in one area and since the authorities don’t have effective ‘eyes’ in that community, they don’t see the planning but, again, I don’t see that happening in the US.
If anything, spreading the refugees around and integrating them into non-Muslim communities makes the likelihood of a Paris style attack in the US pretty remote, comparatively speaking.
Guns aren’t all that hard to procure on the black market. Even in gun controlled Europe. It would likely take one or two individuals to make the vests. Generally these cells tend to be pretty small – both for OPSEC’s sake, and because smaller groups are much easier to conceal.
The guns and most likely the explosives, too, came from the Molenbeek borough of Brussels in Belgium. It’s an Islamist ‘air base’, per Reuters.
NBC reported yesterday that the Paris attacks are estimated to have cost approximately $10k, total.
And that’s the point, and I hope Lars is catching on to it. If we admit 10,000 Syrian refugees, and even ONE is an ISIS plant or sympathizer, we’ve admitted one too many.
I find it similar to the M&Ms analogy someone else posted – if you have a bowl of 10,000 M&Ms, and only one is laced with cyanide (and you don’t know which one it is), will you eat ANY of them?
The analogy holds. When admitting refugees who may have terrorist training or allegiance, we have to be right EVERY time. We can’t be wrong even ONCE, or people will die.
That’s the cost side of the equation. AS TO the benefits of admitting refugees that will not assimilate with our culture, the only justification I have heard so far is that it will make us feel good about ourselves.
There’s some famous quote out there somewhere about how a treaty should not be a suicide pact….
I think we should allow refugees in but vett (sic) them all.
In the words of a commercial from a few years ago, Taylor: “How we gonna do that?”
If you can’t propose a damn near foolproof way to vet those claiming to be “refugees” – then just drop it. Because given the stakes and the likelihood of an infiltration attempt, the method used for vetting those who claim they are “refugees” has to be damn near foolproof.
Oh, and by the way: the verb “vet” is spelled with a single “t”. The “t” is doubled when the verb is made past tense (by adding the “ed” suffix) or forms a gerund.
we are already doing it. I know someone involved. Her is some information on the process.
And the process is thorough.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/syrian-refugees-u-s-applicants-explainer/index.html
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy
Gee. And as Nicki noted above, the DNI, FBI, and DHS have all very recently (as in post-Paris bombing, IIRC) indicated reservations with their agencies’ ability to vet Syrian “refugees” attempting to enter the US.
But Lars the Infallible says the process is sound. So those senior agency officials expressing reservations are obviously “out to lunch”. Lars said so!
Lars, come on son, you’re gonna reference CNN and NPR as sources here at TAH?
Already called him on that for one of yesterday’s threads where he cited his own bloody professor, Poe. Hate to bust your bubble.
yeah, apparently only Fox news and right wing propaganda sites are recognized sources on the board.
We can use research papers because they are by definition not current. We could use government data but most of the members on this board just claim the Obama administration is lying.
You can be skeptical of sources but at east these are major new agencies and NPR in particular scores well with respect to accuracy.
Hey, dickwad! I cited fucking ABC news, moron.
Actually, CBS news. You know. The former home of Dan Rather.
Gee, and I tend to cite more reliable sources myself, such as France24, Agence France Presse, Reuters, and occasionally Le Monde.
I think these have some validity, much more than Wikipedia, which Lardhead also likes to use as a reference.
I sue Wiki as a reference when it is just context or historical dates or events.
If you have an issue with Wiki then the sources are cited and you can check the sources.
When you “sue” Wiki, do you ever collect damages?
I make those kinds of typos constantly
Yes, you certainly do.
One would think by now you’d have figured out what a squiggly red line appearing under a “word” while you’re typing in the comment box here at TAH means.
if you look, most are not spelling errors but replacing similar sounding words or words that have similar grammatical purposes.
Examples from just the last 24 hours: Apple instead of Paladin, Dialed instead of Disabled, Chip instead of ship, at instead of out, bad instead of and, crossbow instead of coffee…
I keep a log to help my doctor track it to see if it progressive.
I miss most of them however.
That explains “sue” vice the correct “use”. It doesn’t explain “vett”. You make the latter type of error (e.g., outright misspellings) fairly often as well.
A minute spent proofreading before hitting the post comment button will likely catch most of the former errors – and should catch virtually all of the latter.
Cute excuses. Apple sounds nothing like Paladin. Dialed sounds nothing like disabled. Not even a faint resemblance to each other, but a completely obvious lack of responsibility for YOUR MISTAKES, Lars.
Then why don’t you do something about it? Surely UC Berkeley has taught you the importance of proofreading?
I have some sort of communication disability. It causes a great deal of error when I type. I could improve the posts by cutting and pasting from word but I usually just respond and don’t bother.
I do however catch a lot when I type.
WOW, larsie-pinky-jiffy-poo, you really have been indoctrinated by your shpcool in berserkely. NOTHING is ever your fault and you’re the “victim” of something every time! Have you considered a career with say, the SPLC, ACLU or HuffyPoo? You’ll fit right in there, and I STILL think that your conception was an accident in the backseat of a car at a drive-in movie theater. OK, KID? 😀
Wiki is fairly reliable, but as Lars (correctly … ah that hurts) points out, one must look at the references.
As I have noted before, in my history classes, I make the following statement: “If you use Wikipedia as a source for your papers, prepare to be publicly ridiculed for at least five minutes.”
These are good ones:
LTC Kratman’s posts on a variety of topics.
http:/ /www.everyjoe.com/tag/tom-kratman
(Not responsible for exploding heads. Host site can be a bit NSFW. Posts are NSF whiners)
Mr Fawstin has a rather direct sense of humor, and posts from the position of an ex-practitioner.
http:/ /fawstin.blogspot.com
(Again, heads may tend to disassemble rapidly. NSFWhiners.)
Your corporate policies may frown on the undistilled POVs of the authors.
grin
Kratman’s got ballz. Must have been an experience being led by him. And I mean that in a good way, as a civ that can only speculate.
http://www.everyjoe.com/2015/11/14/politics/paris-attacks-open-letter-to-france/#1
First, the vetting processes that were in place in Iraq were successful only because the U.S. had 10 fucking years to collect data in the country. There is virtually no way to determine who the good guy or bad guy is who is coming from Syria because the U.S. didn’t have the luxury to establish those records.
Secondly, a report has already come out that a male refugee from Syria has left Louisiana and his whereabouts are unknown.
Do you think that guy was vetted properly?
BTW, folks thought Major Hasan was properly vetted, and look what he did.
Hassan was an American. Not an immigrant.
No shit.
So what is your point then?
And the vetting process to be one of these refugees permitted entry is more thorough than to be an officer or hold a secret clearance.
Hasan is a muslim, you roach turd-brained candyass!
So you are just one of the asshole bigots that blame all Muslims for the actions of a tiny fractions of muslims.
Thanks for providing evidence of my assertion that a lot of the people opposing Syrian immigrants are just ignorant assholes and bigots.
I suspect that is where USMCE8Ret was going with his line as well.
So just HOW MANY of these terrorists were Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buhddist or Atheist, o candyassed thin-skinned ass muffin of a KID?
Fuck does that have to do with anything? At the end of the day, he was a goddamn traitor who killed thirteen of our brothers and sisters and wounded at least sixty others.
And the motherfucker was a commissioned officer. You’d think he was vetted properly just by virtue of his position, and yet he went all ALLAHU ACKBAR on us. What’s to say some of these unknowns won’t?
What the fuck is you point and how does that have anything to do with Syrian refugees.
Unless you are one of those stupid fucks that blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.
Dipshit.
There are Christian terrorists too, should we blame all Christians for their actions?
Because it’s a more stringent vetting process, and someone still slipped through the cracks, you utter fuckwit. My point is that they will slip through the cracks, and you are too fuckin’ obsessed with the idea that the thousands of fuckin’ refugees we’re getting can’t possibly do any wrong dear lord spare me.
Do they just not teach critical thinking skills at that shining bastion of intellectual drain that you attended? Fuck me, man, as for going on about Christian terrorists, I surprisingly don’t blame all muslims or Christians for their extremist counterparts. I blame their faulty dogmas, personally. Part of why I’m a pagan, I follow a religion that has no proscribed dogma, no “divine commission”, no concept of heresy. And as far as I’m concerned, dogmatic religions, especially those that fall under the category of the Abrahamics– that is, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam– will be the downfall of humanity. So nice leap of logic trying to paint me as just another bigot, in the sage words of my ancestors, “try again, motherfucker.”
“. . . you utter f*ckwit . . . .”
(chuckling) Haven’t seen that phrase since the last Ian Rankin novel I read some time ago.
L. Taylor……………..
Here is some in depth research that so dearly made me think of ONLY you!
https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/how-full-of-shit-would-you-have-to-be-to-be-more-full-of-shit-than-dmitry-tymchuk/
I bet if Lars auctioned off his own horsewhipping here at TAH, Al Gore’s internet would be overloaded for all of the bids.
Hassan was an American. Not an immigrant.
True, and irrelevant. Most would agree that the commissioning process for military officers should include a significant vetting process to ensure unstable, disloyal, and/or otherwise unsuitable personnel are not commissioned.
That process very obviously failed in Hassan the Turncoat’s case. That was very obviously USMCE8Ret’s entire point.
The fact that you missed that obvious point tells us much about you, Taylor. And the fact that Berkeley would admit you tells us much about Berkeley.
Thank you for clarifying, Hondo. (I’m late to respond because my commute is a bitch).
I was confident folks here would chime in during my absence.
Do you mean to say that if they are found to commit any crimes or report false information they *should* be sent back (as a proposal that you think is acceptable) or that they *are* being sent back as part of the current refugee policy? If it’s the latter, then who will send them back? The same authorities that are responsible for sending back immigrants that are currently in the country illegally (including those who have overstayed their visas, etc)? Also, how would that be enforced in “sanctuary cities?”
Refugee status is a special status in international agreement. If someone violates the terms of their status they can be deported.
I understand the distinction, Lars. Please answer the questions
Oh, I am sorry. So used to attacks are misinterpreted you inquiry as an attack on what I mean…should have read more carefully.
I am arguing they “should” be. The deportation process would have a hearing.
We already deport more than 600,000 people per year.
The sanctuary city does not prevent federal enforcement of deportation. People living in sanctuary cities can and are deported. It just means the employees do not reach out to initiate deportations or detain people and wait for immigration to arrive and recover them. Essentially, if you are in a sanctuary city the only people you have to be concerned with are the feds. Unless you commit a crime. If you commit a crime immigration is noticed but they have to request that you are held until they come get you.
That is basically how it works. There is variation depending on the city/state but essentially eat means the city employees, including the police, treat you like any other citizen and do not report your presence to immigration when they cross paths with you and suspect or determine you are an illegal.
So, in other words . . . “sanctuary city” is synonymous with that city requiring city officials to be complicit in misprison of felony. Got it.
False. undocumented or unlawful presence is not a crime.
You just have no legal status to be in the country. Simple being there does not, however violate a crime. Because there is not crime to violate.
The crime is usually “illegal entry”. Which is not a felony, it is a misdemeanor. As are violations of visa stays.
City, country, and state employees have no jurisdiction to enforce federal immigration laws. It is beyond their authority to do so. SO they could not arrest you or charge you with illegal entry or a visa violation even if they knew you committed them.
They only thing they have the authority to do is notify federal authorities. But they are under no legal obligation to do so. There is no law compelling citizens to misdemeanors.
Detaining an illegal immigrant while you wait for immigration authorities to respond uses local law enforcement resources and opens the agency to unlawful detention lawsuits if it turns out the person was not an undocumented immigrant but a US citizen or lawful resident. In fact that happens a lot.
It also mathematically does zero net good for a city to waste these resources because in most places immigrants are a strong economic bet positive and letting them integrate into society is in the best interests of the community. In additions undocumented aliens put employer as less risk for hiring in sanctuary cities so the employer is more likely to pay the state minimum wage meaning the undocumented alien is more likely to compete with low skilled American laborers at the same wage rate rather than a significantly lower rate below minimum wage that is often paid to undocumented immigrants under the table in cities that have stronger efforts to detect and report illegal immigrants.
Really? I suggest you consult the US Code – specifically, 8 USC 1325 – and get back to us on that.
As I read it, the first offense of unlawful entry by an alien is a Federal misdemeanor. Second and subsequent offenses are a Federal felony.
Hondo, details my boy,justdetails.
Yeah, Hondo, listen to MCPO NYC USN Ret.
Details matter. The penalty is 6 months or less. Meaning it is BY DEFINITION a class c misdemeanor.
The second or subsequent offense is a class E felony.
I correct my phrasing, however, I said the crime is “Illegal entry” when I should have said “improper entry”. It has been more than 7 years since I detained someone under suspicion of improper entry and did not remember the term used.
Wow. Lars really IS dumber than a cracker box full of carpenter ants. He not only can’t make accurate statements, but when he’s corrected, he parrots the person who corrected him
If that isn’t just classic Lars the Dumb (his words!).
I believe I said that (first offense misdemeanor, 2nd and subsequent offenses a felony) above.
Sanctuary cities make no distinction between the two groups of illegal aliens.
Many illegal aliens have unlawfully entered the US multiple times. Ergo, many of them are “on the lam” for an act that constitutes a Federal felony crime.
By policy, all suspected to be illegal aliens who deal with sanctuary city officials are treated the same; they are not reported to US officials. Ergo, by policy sanctuary cities require their city officials at times to engage in acts that constitute misprison of felony.
Sheesh. Are you actually a moron, or are you just trying to impersonate one here? Just curious.
THAT BOY is one thin-skinned harebrained attention whore.
“Refugee status is a special status in international agreement. If someone violates the terms of their status they can be deported.”
Yeah, well I looked up this treaty you keep making reference to. Apparently it is the:
The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee, and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. The Convention also sets out which people do not qualify as refugees, such as war criminals. The Convention also provides for some visa-free travel for holders of travel documents issued under the convention.
And there is the principle of “non-refoulement” to wit “No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social or political opinion” (Article 33(1))”
So, a refugee cannot be deported Lars. Thanks for playing.
Peekaboo Lars! I know you see me….cat got your tongue?
No, I didn’t see you post. And I really can’t be expected to respond to every post since I tend to get piled on.
We can deport them, but the standard in my original post is probably not sufficient to justify it.
“refugees can exceptionally be returned on two grounds: (i) in case of threat to the national security of the host country; and (ii) in case their proven criminal nature and record constitute a danger to the community. ”
So, I need to revise the standard.
However, nothing in the law prevents us from setting up a refugee detention center and holding anyone violating the terms of reporting or behavior to the refugee detention center.
I think you also need to revise this statement “We already deport more than 600,000 people per year.” lest dear reader conflate “people” with “refugees”. Tsk tsk Lars….sloppy.
That’s worked so well on our southern border. Try again, wonderboy.
false similarity. We do not share a border with Syria.
It’s the same documentation process. They get temporary visas and “poof” disappear into the population never to be seen again.
Until we see them on the news right after detonating their vest.
Most of us on this site are veterans, so I am sure that almost everyone has had to do risk assessments utilizing the risk assessment matrix. Your goal in that is to reduce risk from high to medium and from medium to low. If possible, the ultimate goal is to avoid risk if at all possible.
Well, the best way to avoid the risk of my family being victim to a terrorist act in this country is to reduce the risk of it happening in the first place. The way to do that is to keep POSSIBLE terrorist out.
We do not need to bring them here, let them go, find out that they are really a bad guy, and then try to find them. AND if we do find them before they kill a bunch of us, try to deport them. (Even though we do such a great job of finding and deporting illegal alien criminals now/sarc)
You know, we’re all arguing about this like we have anything to say about it. Here’s reality: they’re coming. It doesn’t matter who did it, why, or even how. The fact is, this government has become the number one manufacturer of usable crises in the world. I guess we should be glad we’re still number one at something. /sarc
“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” – Rahm Emanuel
A tragic reality.
ISIS is a rape culture. A child abuse culture. A horror culture. And it’s often non-violent Muslims being suffocated under its boot.
I grow weary of the Facebook posts of oblivious xenophobes who think Islam is a race, a skin color, a specific blip on the global map which can be neutralized with a generous dropping of bombs.
I saw one meme which said, “It’s God’s job to judge the terrorists. It’s our job to arrange the meeting.”
Radical Islam is an idea. And while we should be quick and decisive to snuff out the threats of terrorism (and I’m a proponent of force against those who seek to wreak havoc), we’re spinning our wheels if we don’t work to replace fundamental Islam’s bad ideas with better ones.
We can be fierce and strong against the jihadists, but let us never sacrifice our empathy and humanity for fellow human beings who are seeing their daughters raped, their spouses beheaded, their homes destroyed, their lives shattered.
This is a complex problem. I don’t have the answers, but I know that the issue deserves more than chest-thumping and bumper stickers, and so do so many people who have found themselves caught in the meat-grinder, desperate to find a future without pain.
There you go again! Sometimes I wonder who I gave all my guns to…
What? Do you think it is easy being the Village Idiot? The typing offset alone causes cramps.
I spent some time with a man and his family at some irrelevant location in southern Lebanon.
He put everything, what little he possessed, his life, and his family at risk to fight the rise of militant Islam.
He kept a small bag of coffee stashed and when I arrived he made a big ceremony of preparing a cup, just one, and only for me.
Islam is a disease of the mind. Yet, I trusted that man with my life, and so did others.
A mass influx of Islamic refugees into this country can not be tolerated. If you understood what that particular one did, you would understand why I would give him everything I own.
Semper Fi brother.
I have seen what you are talking about.
“Folks is folks” – Jedediah Clampett
Rock on DH
Well, you see, thanks to dumb bimbos like Lars and his conclave, I will not just have to be alert at the grocery store. I will also have to make sure that any time someone besides Dave Hardin tries to hit on me, I will be able to protect myself with loud, indignant noises, an ability to attract a wide audience, and a handy bunch of packs of breakfast sausages nearby, not to mention whole hams and the family-sized packs of hickory smoked, thick cut bacon.
Really, Lars the Dumb (his words) has completely ruined my grocery shopping for the nonce.
It’s more than just a rape culture. It’s a culture of dominance and aggression, both of which are characteristics of rape, dictatorship, and any kind of fundamentalism.
You toe the line or you suffer and die. Or you just die.
Wonder where he expects the fuckers to get shacked up, to be perfectly frank. Because I can see state governors doing everything in their power to tie up any kind of money to stow ’em somewhere, and quartering them with legal, law abiding citizens has to be some kind of violation of law.
If they’re sent to Chicago, I think Englewood is perfect for them, especially at 2AM.
“So now the entire left is responsible for Kevin Drum’s opinion piece?” Who the hell are you directing that to, Lars? Drum himself speaks of the Left, w/o qualification. Take issue with him if you like. That said, you and your ilk are sillier than a hippo in a tutu. Whatever your plan (“I think…blah, blah, blah”), no one here gives a shit. I used to be willing to tolerate you but, in a real sense, you represent much of what is wrong with our country. So, screw that hands across the aisle crap. It just doesn’t work.
Hey I like Lars. When I need a floor painted he’s my go to guy. It’s funnier than a night at the Improv.
You would let him paint your floor? But what about the footprints from the far corner to the doorway? You’re okay with that?
Do you think citronella candles will work as Lars repellent? I have one on either side of my screen and I’m uncertain whether to light them.
Might work. So far, clicking on ads seems to have no effect.
In regard to the footprints, I make him start over until he gets it right. He is still working on the first floor.
You could try tansy, too, or wormwood. I found that they are both effective against pests, and environmentally friendly.
Citronella plants also work nicely at repelling pests. I’m currently shopping for a 55 gallon drum of “IDIOT BE GONE” to use on “Pinky” Taylor.
Garlic and a cross.
Hey, they reportedly worked against Dracula. (smile)
Just don’t burn wormwood inside. In concentration, it’s toxic.
Crush it, store it in a jar of vodka, and let it ferment. It becomes absinthe. Drove Van Gogh nuts.
What are Gogh nuts? And, who dove the van? You people don’t make any sense.
Thank you for the gigglesnort, Dave Hardin.
Very nice imagery there, Cav, a liberal once again painting himself into a corner.
“Pinky” Lars could fuck a wet dream up, he’d paint himself into a corner and spend the rest of the day telling everyone there was NO PAINT on the floor!
Lars’ liberal friends in their sanctuary cities are so open minded about immigration that all vestiges of their culturally limited common since long ago evaporated into the ether. They fight against ANY sensible law enforcement measures even when it comes to deporting serious criminal offenders in the illegal immigrant population, all in the name of their twisted vision of human rights.
We seriously can expect nothing less of Lars and company than an open-armed welcome to Obama’s Muslim migrants regardless of any realistic terrorist threat some of those Syrians may pose. we don’t even know who is fighting on what side for what cause in Syria itself but Lars and his liberal pals are assured that we can effectively sort them out here, far from the actual battlefields.
Yet it is Lars and his friends who see those of us who counsel caution as “irrationally fearful assholes and bigots.” Lars unwittingly describes his own kind quite well with his denunciations of those of us with whom he disagrees. I stand proud to be seen by those such as Lars as an asshole and a bigot. It is indeed a badge of honor to be seen as a hard-nosed, demanding “asshole” who is definitely “bigoted” against Muslim fanatics who would bring harm to this nation.
You and me both, PT!
I don’t know why I feel surprised, but the parallels to Europe in the 1930s, when fascism and Nazism were rising, is more and more strange. The surprise on my part is that people were as much in denial about the very real threats from those fanatics as they are from these we face now.
You don’t offer a rabid animal a warm hug and a bowl of food. You kill it off, unless you want to be infected by it.
Lars quotes CNN and NPR.
Let me quote DHS USCIS Web site updated 7/15/2015:
http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/refugees/questions-answers-refugees
Nothing on the site refers to Syrian Refugees …
But there is this from October 1, 2015:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/01/uscis-official-struggles-to-explain-efficacy-of-syrian-refugees-vetting-process/
Well its finally official. YOU PEOPLE are all sick, you suffer from a diminished mental capacity. Your inability to go with the flow may qualify you for disability.
Thankfully I know how to play well with others. Please, seek treatment, if not for yourselves do it for the greater good.
http://themindunleashed.org/2013/11/nonconformity-and-freethinking-now.html
Dave, please – for the sake of the mice in your house – stopping smoking that crap. It will give you uterine cancer.
Hey, I’m not the ‘weirdo’ here. I have it on good authority that you are.
I’m not the one who married a stripper, either. You are.
I was desperate and longing for the love of a good woman. If you would have been my biscuit, I would have been your gravy.
Now, we are kinda like wet toast.
Sounds like the makings of a good country song…
Who married a stripper?
That is awesome!
I would NOT do it, but still awesome!
Somebody’s gonna write a book about this romance some day…
😀
If she would stop sharing her sauce with the entire 6th Fleet, maybe I would have a chance.
I have smoked sausage with barbecue beans, celery, carrots, and toast for supper. Hot tea – lots of hot tea. And for afters, a triple-chocolate mousse delight.
Tomorrow, I will throw the remaining zukes into the minestrone with some diced roast chicken leftover and diced roma tomatoes. The pot just keeps going on and on.
There is an excellent piece up at American Thinker today by G. Murphy Donovan dealing with this issue among others:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/trojan_horses_at_a_gallop.html
Trojan Horses at a gallop indeed…
What an excellent read. Thankx for the link.
“Terror strikes and then retreats to sanctuary under a burka of global religious immunities.”
They use the vulnerabilities of a free society against the very people who provide their freedom to do it.
That was quite interesting.
Eight months ago, a columnist I follow regularly said, basically, that if we don’t snap out of this nicey-nicey stuff, we will spend an enormous amount of money, time and blood defending ourselves.
Then I run into idjits like Lars the Dumb (hey, HE said he’s dumb, just quoting him) and wonder if we’re going to outlast an enemy that wants only to kill us all.
History repeats itself yet again.
What in the hell do you think the Soviet Union did before and during World War II? Along with after?
Ummm…. oh! I know! Clamped down on Central Asian states?
Lars,
Do you attend UC Berkely?
Did. Why?
That goes toward explaining why you’re stupider than DallASS WiTtLeSsFaRt on Dutch Rudder Gang Cocktails and LSD!
Graduating from the top public university in the world and one of the top 5 ranked universities globally is evidence that I am stupid.
Maybe you should relook at your assumptions and your system of beliefs if it leads you to fuckwit conclusions like that.
Top university in the world? Hardly.
Not even in the top 10 in the USA – much less in the world overall. Hell, it’s not even #1 in northern CA – or #2 in the state, for that matter!
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
Elaine Ricci graduated from a top 5 university. I read it on the internet. Or was it 4…
I made a world ranking claim and you posted a US news national rankings? Why not post the US news world rankings? Since that is the claim I made. The criteria for national rankings are widely regarded as ridiculous because they weight things like “alumni giving rate” and “average income after graduating” which do not reflect the merits of the education and strongly favor people who were from wealthy connected families and this schools that admit a lot of wealthy connected individuals Like the Ivies. Since schools with rich kids from rich connected families tend to make more money, or have more income after graduating even if the income has nothing to do with their education. And the national rankings also poorly reflect the quality of fields that contribute to human knowledge but are not high paying fields.
Here is the USnews global rankings which specifically only evaluate educational and academic criteria such as the quality of the education, the quality of the students, the resources, and quality of the faculty, the university contribution to academic fields and sciences, and the international reputation.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
Here is the ranking I favored in choosing because I my work was focused on the pacific region and this ranking reflects that region.
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2015.html
“Rich kids from rich families”.
I am callingit here: DADDY ISSUES!
AWWWWW what’s da mattwe widdwe rudy-poo larsie-parsie? Can’t take what you dish out?
AAAAWW, DIDUMS FALL DOWN AND GO BOOM? 😀
Yeah, KID!
OK KID.
Yeah pookums, what are the next talking points you’re going to share with us from the last CAIR meeting/goat orgy you went to?
OK, Taylor – we’ll play the game using those “cherry picked” rankings you provided above. You’re still full of it.
In both of the “cherry-picked” rankings you link to above, Berkeley isn’t even #1 in the US. Kinda hard to be “best in the world” when you’re not even #1 in your own nation.
Looks like your earlier claim is nothing but a case of wishful thinking. In plan language, that translates to, “You were wrong and your claim has been demonstrated to be bullsh!t.”
Or maybe that’s too kind, and the claim was really a case of willful, blatant misrepresentation on your part. Pray tell: which was it?
I said
“top PUBLIC university in the world ”
and top 5 ranked globally. And what I posted supported my making the claim.
Rankings have subjectivity built in and the ranking varies depending on the weighting preferences and criteria being evaluated.
But Berkeley ra king as the top public university in the world is consistent across all university rankings. And it being ranked in the top 5 of all global universities is fairly consistent though it is in the top 10 or even top 12 in a few ranking in some years.
For political science it is 1st in the world. Political economy/economics it is in the top 3. Those were my majors.
My point is that it is not a university to be ridiculed and dismissed as being one that lowers someones credibility. If someone perceives Berkeley to be a negative and undermines someone’s credibility it is because they have a flawed system of beliefs.
You did indeed caveat your claim by limting it to public universities. You then for once provided cherry-picked data to support your argument.
However, other worldwide college ranking schemes disagree. In particular, this one places several foreign universities receiving state support ahead of Berkeley. That means these foreign universities are more properly in the US “public university” sphere than private.
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2015#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=
Per Top Universities ranking, UC Berserkeley is #26.
Per the 2016 edition of Best Colleges, UC Berserkeley is #20.
So much for ‘top university in the world’, which is actually the university’s statement, not a 3rd party assessment.
My alma mater ranks considerably higher than that.
I’m impressed, Lars. You should have your own reality show. We could call it Keeping Up With The Kommissar…
Go find a job or something, Lars.
You can bore your coworkers to death while you’re there, and maybe you’ll even get a paycheck.
I’m certain that Larsie-parsie rudy-poo the creampuff is on break from his “studies” and back at home with his Mommy posting from her computer and getting a warm enema from her because she thinks he’s been a good little boy!
I slept with a Librarian at UCLA. She taught me all about the Dewey Decimal system.
That librarian had never been exposed to the ‘Right’ way of doing things. Ahhhh the benefits of being a Marine in a world of lesser men.
Just because an exotic dancer named Dewey wears glasses, and uses the decimal system to measure your assets doesn’t mean she’s a librarian, Dave.
Semper Fiduciary
But, she said she worked at the Library days, she had a card and everything.
And you believed her.
Well…..Ya. You don’t understand how well she did shorthand. I needed help getting through the little west coast school I was sent to. Nothing like Mr Taylor of course.
I couldn’t decide what to do, so I took the GRE, GMAT, LSAT and just for good measure I did a Kuder exam. For some strange reason they thought it would be a good idea if I took the MMPI, now that test is crazy.
I CLEP’d the Art Appreciation with a Rorschach test. I gave her all the results and asked what my IQ was, she said it was best I didn’t know.
You mean – your dad tried to put you in the 4th grade when you were 5 years old, like mine did?
No wonder you’re such a tough cookie.
I passed out in a library once.
Don’t read books back in the stacks. Read near a window. Fresh air helps.
It is a fine school no doubt. It might explain how and why you pontificate the way you do, no criticism just an observation … I am a big fan of higher edumication myself.
I have Yale, Stern NYU, Nyack, Rutgers, Roger Williams and Mohegan in my blood.
So, you did CIV Affairs and PSHY OPS?
Mostly intel and Civ Affairs,l but I had a usually had input in shaping Psyop messaging.
So, when a PsyOps guy says you are off the rails nutz, is that a good thing Master Chief?
I am wondering how long it will take for him to realize his keel is fouling aground in shallow water.
Anyway, should I be honored or offended?
Do you have a job?
I’m sure all his time is taken up between studying for his PhD in Gender Studies and protesting for $15 an hour minimum wage.
Lying is nothing new here to our leftist friends look at our health care law
I think that Lars is Isipid’s and Joe the Rock Climbing Hero’s bastard love child.
I see him as a hybrid cross between Phildo and that Lawn Dart that’s a Fred Phelps clone!
Would you be referencing the False Commander Phil Monkress (CEO of All-Points Logistics)and his felonious and fake Navy SEAL, Native American and Law Enforcement claims?
All of which were made for his own personal gain and profit?
So lets look at Lars’ statement here from above:
L. Taylor says:
November 18, 2015 at 3:26 pm
“So you are just one of the asshole bigots that blame all Muslims for the actions of a tiny fractions of muslims.
Thanks for providing evidence of my assertion that a lot of the people opposing Syrian immigrants are just ignorant assholes and bigots.
I suspect that is where USMCE8Ret was going with his line as well.”
That is a fairly broad stroke of a brush from such an edumicated and enlightened person.
I would not go that far as to suggest evidence of anything … I might just say that US citizens (and other peace loving peoples) are justifiably concerned about the muslim, jihadist and or refugee issue in general.
But to call a lot of people ignorant assholes and bigots based on your personal observation of this most serious issue does not qualify for evidence to support your twisted notion.
Just sayin’ …
ATTENTION – FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION:
Dear TAH Followers and Commenters,
I am taking up a collection to purchase a needed item for Lars.
The ‘Life Alert’ electronic emergency services notification pendant made famous by the quote, “I have fallen and can’t get up” will aide in preventing Lars’ ‘self-murder’ by web-based sensory over load.
All he will have to do is press the button on the pendant affixed around his pencil-neck when he has the realization that he is wrong …
So please donate what you can, I think we can save him, I really do!
Thanks,
MCPO
Take up a collection to pay for my furnace repairs instead, Master Chief. It would be far more useful.
I would be eternally grateful and my cat would adore you, and send you an autographed picture of him along with a bottle of O’Doul’s Irish Cream and a set of glasses.
How much do you need. Plus I am a retired former Boiler Tech, I knows sum peoples, if you know whada’ mean …
Oh, shucks, I already paid for it. It is running like a new furnace now. I will put off installing a new one for several more years, and take the old blower motor to a cash recycling place. It is just loaded with copper wire, and so is my unfortunately slashed lawn mower cord. Copper’s down a little but I think I could get a couple of quid for both things.
Stove, gun, classes, and now a furnace. Does the price of your love have no end? Can we invite the Taylor kid over now and then?
No. He’s messy and does not clean up after himself.
You can argue the merits of this and that with my neighbors. Most of them are Latinos with jobs.
Also: my love has no price. It is priceless.
What was I thinking? Of course it is.
I was hoping I could play with the Taylor kid now and then. What if I keep him outside? Except to use the bathroom of course.
I’ll build you an outhouse down the road a hike, round the bend, up the two hills, then down the rooted trail to the holler.
If you can find it and keep it clean, you can play there.
HEY MCPO, will it summon a *WAAAH*mbulance for him every time he thinks he needs a group hug, some fresh Kool-Aid and a peanut butter sandwich while everyone sings “Kum-ba-yah”? The main thing that keeps me from donating is that I DON’T GIVE two hoots of a moldy ratshit about him! 😀
I’ve noticed a trend…
Whenever folks mention Lars’ name 3 times when he’s absent, he magically appears.
nah-ah.
You only had to mention it once.
So how many times do you have to play the GBCW card before you just FOAD?
Betlegeuse Betlegeuse Betlegeuse!!!!
Careful with that, you’ll summon Ford Prefect instead. 😛
And that’s a bad thing how, precisely?
Now, if you were summoning a Vogon construction crew . . . .
Because my schedule is too full right now to make room for intergalactic space debauchery. D:
Hey, as I recall Ford was rather sane and straight-laced.
Zaphod, on the other hand, was seriously into multiple forms of debauchery. Then again, what else would you expect from someone that Eccentria Gallumbits called “the best bang since the Big One”? (smile)
Taking the body of the Eccentria Gallumbits into account, one has to take Zaphod as serious as possible on that one.
As straight laced as Ford was, though, typically, if you saw one, you saw the other. And voices of reason seldom work well in blitzed-debauchery mode.
One of my friends said that finding a terrorist in the refugees was like finding a needle in a haystack.
I asked her a simple question.
If you knew there was a needle contaminated with cyanide in a haystack, would you allow it in your front yard where your children play?
She didn’t answer.
I also ask Larsie-puddin’-tame if there was a tub of 10.000 gumballs and you were told that 200 of them were laced with poison, how many would you take for yourself?
She didn’t answer because she can’t answer honestly and still maintain a “liberal” position. That’s using logic, see, and liberals (and I am not insinuating that your friend is one) are violently allergic to logic that undermines their principles.
200 plus comments and not a word about Bernath.
Must be another butthurt pussy who can’t just STFU and fade away.
Not true, he has been here all day. My friends at the DICHRTGRU have been keystroking him all day.
Apparently, he IS not tracking on the conversation(s) very well, the voices in his head are making stuff up and believes everyone is breaking the law, a subject he is about to learn all about.
But what do I know …
So, whatshisname is being kept busy… with false info?
Pretty much so, I guess, don’t care much either.
He is a non-issue to me and my world.
Yeah, but you got bernath bucks out of him. I want REVENGE! Just get me a pen and a phone!
Oh, I was not talking about him!
But, since you brought it up …
Who?
That is about how much I really give to that issue!
I don’t get you guys. We don’t learn anything from Lars. Lars doesn’t learn anything from us. We just annoy each other. Why do you engage with him? Do you scream at traffic too? If Lars was even half as smart as he says that he is, he would say intelligent things that we could not deny and we would be in awe of his brilliance. If we asked he would say that since we are knuckle-draggers and we cannot comprehend his brilliance. But this leaves us nowhere.
Remember the Gary Larson cartoon of the guy talking to his dog? “Blah – blah – blah – Lars” – I think I got that right.
I’m done with this. I have a life and L. Taylor has no part in it.
It’s a form of therapy, Richard, something on the order of ‘Bring out your dead!’, and the old fellow doesn’t want to go on the cart.
It relaxes me. Its kind of like mental masturbation.
I realize it may be disturbing for others to watch, maybe we should get a room.
HAHAHAHAHA, not all still waters are deep.
I know for a fact that all who post on this site are smart enough to recognize Lars for what he is. That being, he relishes in the delusion that he serves as the Site Antognist on TAH. Starting at 11:53 this morning and ending at 8:09 this evening, a total of 50 posts. It would destroy him to realize none of us lose any sleep over what he writes, none of us really think about it after we go to bed. There is ONE thing that would ruin his day. That being if he thought he did not jerk anybody’s chain and piss off at least one person today so he can continue spouting his babble. In most everyone’s mind I am sure we are all open-minded and reasonable to a point, maybe a fault. Today poor Larsie boi pushed it too far. It would tear him a new ass if nobody responded to him for, let’s say, three days. If he had to go elsewhere to piss people off, he’d go out of his mind. Hmmm, now there’s a thought. My two cents worth. For now, you can include me OUT Larsie. Both dogs will require warm water enemas, which puts your scribble and drivel in second place.
Sorry you don’t bother me that much.
Well, he DID, in his own words, say ‘I’m dumb’. That kind of set the tone for the rest of his natterings. He mostly posts to get attention because the campus psych counselor is out on holiday now and he has no one else he can complain to for free.
And remember: his ex-girlfriend left him. This is important. We girls don’t usually abandon someone unless he’s a lousy lay.
Maybe she left him because he’s a spineless milquetoast liberal wussy-ass Momma’s boy as well?
Or maybe she left him because A) he’s a lousy lay; B) he bored her to death; and C) she found a job as far away from him as possible.
Attention whore as well, HOW many times has the little beanpole weenie-wuss of a candyass told us he was leaving only to pop up again like a recurring parasitic infection?
We did discuss pest repellents, API. However, you made a good point. I used to know someone who wormed his horses by giving them tobacco in their feed. But that was before the genetic modification of the nicotiana plant.
I’m sure she left him because she found herself not worthy of his attentions.
His brilliance was like staring into the sun too long…
Yeah, I’m sorry, I couldn’t stop laughing when I typed that.
Perhaps if we refer to him only as ‘him’, ‘him’ will not reappear.
Well, it’s only an idea.
“…if nobody responded to him for, let’s say, three days.”
Agree. Except “ever”. I’ll also attempt to not mention him.
I clicked on a shitload of ads yesterday!
Thank you SJ, I myself have done the same with Lars and his leftest ranting. I simply do not read,or respond to his post. This kind of Maoist thinking is impossible to debate, let alone argue with.
I just like turning him into a verbal pincushion.
I sometimes suspect he enjoys that experience – and that’s why he keeps coming back.
Well, either that or he’s simply too thick to understand he’s being proven an abject fool. Take your pick.
Either way, means I’m doing something right. That amusing realization that there’s still reply space on the last thing I said to him and he’s remained shockingly silent.
Must have been my abject Rankinism offending his delicate ears. I’m sorry, but there are more ways to call someone an ignorant motherfucker that don’t involve the words “ignorant motherfucker”. 😛
DAMN! How it pisses me off when I see too late I misspelled a word. It’s ANTAGONIST damnit!!!
There, their, their’re, your going to be fine.
HEY Larsie-parsie-kiddy creampuff, this is for you, KID! 😀
Ah, yes, more pearls of wisdom from the beta males. These are the same pussies that will be screaming like a bitch when something does happen. They are the ones who will be cowering under their desks and begging someone else to save their skinny jean wearing asses, when Achmed comes a calling.
All the MJ article proves is that the lefty agenda cannot be presented rationally so it must be hidden. Why should they change now? That tactic has worked well for them for a hundred years or so. All they have to do it stir up their useful idiots to spew this week’s lies and vitriol. Disgusting, every last one of them.
(This is in reply to Dave’s comments from above.) Let me start with a slight clarification – my notion was that we must weigh the change in risk (delta-R) with the ability to do some good. I think implicit in that is the costs of an attack -lives lost, infrastructure, policy changes, etc- but I hadn’t given a whole lot of structured thought to weighing those, or even listing them to the extent you and Hondo had covered. I think if we’re going to do a risk-analysis, you two are off to a great start, and if I get a chance I’ll run some numbers myself,.. but I think it isn’t just about the quantifiable things. It’s also about unquantifiable things. Things that I feel -and maybe just me?- are intrinsic to the American character and not strictly relevant to an actuarial-style risk analysis, but very relevant to moral decisions. Basically, we take on extra risk to do what’s right. So do we let that impact our analysis, and if so, by how much? Another slight clarification is that I feel fear shouldn’t factor into the decision making process – I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘resistance to fear’, but effectively our decisions should be guided by our analysis and our principles. And we can’t really call ourselves the ‘home of the brave’ if we let fear keep us from doing what is right. Fair enough so far? Now let’s get to the question you ask.. and the answer I can’t give you. I honestly don’t know what an ‘acceptable’ loss is – the emotional side of me rebels against the idea, since any loss is unacceptable in that sense. The logical side understands that every action has consequences. Someone, somewhere, probably has figures (debatable figures, but figures nonetheless) about how gun rights result in X-deaths per year, but we recognize that a person’s right to defend themselves and own weapons is more important than potential lives lost. (And no, I’m not trying to turn this into a gun debate – we can say the same about anything.… Read more »
You have a good argument, but X number of perpetrators is not relevant to X number of victims.
It took only 2 people to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City and kill 168 people, never mind how many were injured.
It took only 2 people to detonate homemade bombs at the Boston Marathon and kill 3 people, and badly injure 263 others.
It took only one small bomb in a Schweppes soda can to down that Russian airliner, killing 224 people.
You can only guess what is going on in somebody’s mind, what his/her intent really is, and people will say and do anything to get what they want.
It is not people numbers that count as much as it is intent, access to materials, and knowledge of how to use them. Numbers are tangible. Those other things are not.
I would describe your response as almost intoxicating. That was far from polemic. I find it difficult to determine a number, any number as acceptable but rather inevitable.
It is fair to say I struggle with a bit of cognitive dissonance in my own right with this issue. As I ineptly alluded to in my previous post, the resistance to fear is the force levied against the outright denial of accepting any refugees, or a number 0 being added to the equation.
The safest scenario is obviously a ban on refugees. I have a personal bias because I have known several that are living in the region and would identify as Islamic. As I stated in another post the moderate Islamic people are paying the heaviest price so far.
If 1 in a thousand turns out to be on a mission to do harm, the amount of damage is predicated upon their ability to plan and effectively execute their mission.
I have found playing with things like Manifold Theory and the Drake Equation somewhat useful. I have even played with the Pendulum Equation as a means to define the waxing and waning of threat analysis.
Greater minds than mine may prevail, but it is fascinating to consider the function.
Chaos theory would work better in this case. If 10,000 people are admitted to residence some place, and nothing happens, then is it safe to assume the next 10,000 are equally mild in their intent?
No, it is not, because the probability is that one of those 10,000 could change his/her mind and become a threat while here, whereas before arriving here, he/she had only the desire to find a safe haven.
Isaac Asimov’s character Hari Seldon tried to use math to predict human behavior. But nowhere in any of the Foundation novels does Asimov address chaos as an effect, which he should have done.
Einstein was right about exceeding the speed of light – mass does increase – but he did not take into consideration the possibility that space could be mechanically warped and MIguel Alcubierre did, by constructing the formula for a warp drive.
I’m just saying that doing the math is fine, but it fails to take chaos – the one person who changes AFTER arriving – into consideration.
That is a consideration. The woman who killed herself in Paris a great example. Notwithstanding that, the Delta R is a change in the background or current risk.
Asimov was a visionary much in the same way Verne was a century earlier. I understand that regardless of what summary analysis can be accomplished there will always be those who act inconsistently or deliberately act in a contrary manner.
I think Einstein is best used here to illustrate we often have the correct answer but choose not to accept it. Mush as he did with the Cosmological Constant he used to modify his calculations so he resulted in a static universe. As it turns out, he had the correct answer all along but dismissed it as trivial.
Something I would never do to you my precious.
Get this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-Science-James-Gleick/dp/0143113453
A little light reading may do you some good.
Einstein proved mathematically that space is warped by gravity.
Hubble proved it with a photograph of light warped by the gravity field of a distant galaxy.
Heinlein used Einstein’s intuitive warping of space in a story, in which a ship does not move; space moves past it.
Alcubierre proved it can be done by formulating the math.
Sometimes, intuitive knowledge is more accurate than physical evidence.
It really is amazing to think about. 100 years ago the known universe was limited to the visible parts of our own galaxy.
It is a shame we waist so much collective energy and intellectual potential on things like dealing with Islam.
If the was a version of Asimov’s Eternity, I would be in it.
See my comment on chaos below, here: http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=62856&cpage=1#comment-2728758
What?
Are you lost, Master Chief? Watch out for the knee knockers. They’ll get you every time.
Please dont mention Roddenberry, the one who’s name I care not to mention will decide to chime in.
Never.
I tend to use graphics on analysis, somehow the vision of statistics seems to reveal patterns.
On a side note, the one thing that has not been discussed to much extent is the harm bringing refugees anywhere causes to the fight against ISIS.
If we accept that most refugees are against that lifestyle then removing them from the region leaves less people to join the fight.
We can not simply relocate masses of people to effectively counter tyranny. I risk becoming verbose.
Great Post.
The habit of knuckling under to tyranny is ingrained in them. They do not understand the true meaning of ‘freedom’, nor will they accept it.
I do not think anything will change that, short of a major natural disaster, something on the order of Tablet 10 of Gilgamesh. And they are too far inland for that to happen.
What could I offer the queen of love in return, who lacks nothing at all?
Balm for the body? The food and drink of the gods?
Tablet VI
HEY, will you two GO GET A ROOM already? 😀
Proud? <3 <3 <3.
Sleep, for now the long night wanes…love, sleep.
My arms will hold you close. I shall not go.
dire solitude can now no longer keep
Dominion in this unity we know.
Terror shall leave, it will become a dream
Faint as the shadow of a silver leaf
Drifting upon a dim slow-moving stream.
— Bathsheba
Look, if Nathan the prophet shows up here, I am not answering the door.
I can not be held accountable for anything I have done in a former life.
(This one is in reply to one of Hondo’s comments)
I think the risks are well known, but I’ll disagree with you a bit on the (net) potential gains. There might not be any international goodwill resulting from us taking some, but refusing to take some costs us some of that same, nebulous goodwill and respect, in my opinion. There’s still a net change, in other words.
I could list other (vanishingly?) small factors, but as I more or less said above, when you feel taking in people seeking shelter from war is morally right, then it’s no longer a ‘foolish risk’. To use a different example, some could look at the risks and potential earnings of serving four years in the military and conclude that it’s a ‘foolish risk’ because of the potential threat of loss of life, bodily harm, low pay, etc., but most everyone here did presumably because they felt it was the right thing to do – to aid their country, in spite of the ‘foolish risk’ that some would cite. The same is true here, I think, except it’s a humanitarian need, not a national one.
Clock boy. Born here. Grew up here. Went to school here. Chaos theory prevails in this kind of thing. Chaos embraces random events as well as random numbers. What startles one person into near hysterics will have someone else laughing into near asphyxiation. Even eyewitnesses to something do not report exactly the same thing. That has been proven in laboratory tests and in the real world, at events like the riots last year near St.Louis. How many people now, for example, will decide to become suicide bombers or shooters because somehow, they got their feelings hurt about nothing and talked themselves into it? That’s where chaos theory can best be applied. Here’s an example: the Boxing Day quake 12/26/2004 created a tidal wave that rebounded many times and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Unlike animations, the wave did not appear as a pipe you’d see in surfing spots. It came in as a tumbling, growing, foaming monster that surged onto land, drove mountains of debris before it, surged back and rolled in again, still in this non-surf pipe form. The Honshu quake also generated a massive tidal wave, the same height, which slowly moved toward the coast of the island, forming a long, surf-pipe line that only curled when it reached the rising shoreline, but like the Sumatra tidal wave, it drove mountains of debris ahead of it, moving everything from fishing trawlers to warehouses inland. Neither wave resembled the other, but they were both the product of 9.0+ submarine earthquakes, they both were affected by the height* of the land they overwhelmed, and they both created enormous damage. *The coastline where the 12/26/2004 quake occurred was pushed upward 30* feet. The coastline of Honshu moved eastward as much as 13 feet and dropped at least 10 feet in some places, making the 30 foot seawalls ineffective against a tidal wave. The Indonesian islands where the Boxing Day quake occurred were completely unprepared for any kind of event like that, and the tidal waves that followed. The damage and loss of life was the result of the force of… Read more »