The Religion of Peace Strikes Again-Australian Ediition

[Hardcore troubadour 16,013]

Liberals still clinging to the higher levels of education bullshitt. Meanwhile whole school districts in blue cities can’t read or write at grade level. 

[Fnord 2,634]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Fnord, I consider you smart so I'm going to try to word this carefully.  The bolded shows an utter and complete lack of comprehension of what I've repeatedly said, including the very post you quoted, where I specifically said "concentration of Muslims."  The request in the bolded to show "every single Muslim" is silly, TimHauck-level stuff.  I expect better from you.   

Respectfully, no, it doesn't. Your "concentration of Muslims" argument is essentially the same as saying "wherever there's a few Muslims" IMO. Which is also farcical, as it does not take a concentration of anything for one or two zealots to plot an attack.

 

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

Lol.  See what I mean @Fnord? Jerry isn’t better than peefoam 

Dude, just stop with this. You can hate Jerry's guts all you want and have all the opinions you'd like. I will judge folks based on how they interact with me primarily, then on how they interact with others. Again, respectfully, IDGAF about your opinion of Jerry, much like IDGAF about his opinion of you. I appreciate both of you as intelligent posters with disparate views. You're both pretty nasty to each other, and I want no part of it.

[dogcows 1,197]

18 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Liberals still clinging to the higher levels of education bullshitt. Meanwhile whole school districts in blue cities can’t read or write at grade level. 

Reality check:
Of the 10 states with the lowest education levels, 8 are led by Republicans.

Education level in cities is also noticeably better than in rural areas.

[Hardcore troubadour 16,013]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Reality check:
Of the 10 states with the lowest education levels, 8 are led by Republicans.

Education level in cities is also noticeably better than in rural areas.

There’s a lot more kids in the blue cities. A lot More are being let down by the highly educated, like you claim. Nice try though. 

[Mark Davis 435]

5 hours ago, Fnord said:

 

I understand where you are coming from, but how about one of you produce a link showing us that every single Muslim immigrant is a violent adherent to Sharia law with no plans to assimilate, refuses to be a productive member of society, and will ultimately destroy our nation from within? Oh, you can't?

Yeah, I know that's snarky AF, but this whole argument is absurd. YES, some of these immigrants are bad people with bad intentions committing crimes. Most are not. I live in a community with many of these people, I work with them. I'm very fond of some of them, they work hard, they're pleasant people, they have families to support, and they have, in fact, assimilated.

TO BE VERY CLEAR: I do NOT think you two are bigots, but what you're saying here is highly bigoted. Most of these people experienced violence and despair in their home countries that we cannot fathom as Americans. This nation was created for them. Right down to the freedom to practice the religion of their choice. I don't expect stupid focks like HT or seafoam to understand it. But you're better than them.

The problem people with my view and your view have coming together is you frame it in my point of view needing to show you every single Muslim is this way. Of course they are not. It frustrates me to have that argument constantly used when it’s not the point of view of the vast majority of people who see this the way I do. I’m not sure if it’s intentional or if you fail to understand the viewpoint. 

See when it comes to terrorism, unfortunately it’s your side that needs to bat 1.000, not mine. If this were a one off incident somewhere of an immigrant becoming radicalized then ok.  Thats not what’s happening and statistically you know that.  Thats not bigoted, that’s numeric and statistical fact. I’m not willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans for this Pollyanna belief that we can bring in people from these lands and know who the good guys are.  It’s never been proven to be so anywhere in the West when it comes to radical Islam.

 

[SaintsInDome2006 757]

2 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

The problem people with my view and your view have coming together is you frame it in my point of view needing to show you every single Muslim is this way. Of course they are not. It frustrates me to have that argument constantly used when it’s not the point of view of the vast majority of people who see this the way I do. I’m not sure if it’s intentional or if you fail to understand the viewpoint. 

See when it comes to terrorism, unfortunately it’s your side that needs to bat 1.000, not mine. If this were a one off incident somewhere of an immigrant becoming radicalized then ok.  Thats not what’s happening and statistically you know that.  Thats not bigoted, that’s numeric and statistical fact. I’m not willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans for this Pollyanna belief that we can bring in people from these lands and know who the good guys are.  It’s never been proven to be so anywhere in the West when it comes to radical Islam.

 

Some problems here:

- The way this admin is running terrorism counterintelligence & enforcement.

- The fact that so many other terror & extremist ideologies are at the root of attacks.

[Mark Davis 435]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Fnord, I consider you smart so I'm going to try to word this carefully.  The bolded shows an utter and complete lack of comprehension of what I've repeatedly said, including the very post you quoted, where I specifically said "concentration of Muslims."  The request in the bolded to show "every single Muslim" is silly, TimHauck-level stuff.  I expect better from you.   

Just read this after I responded. My feelings exactly. Is a total misrepresentation of what I’ve said and my feelings at the very least. I’m not saying this of FNord in particular as it’s possible he misconstrued it, but it’s never been my belief every single Muslim is that way.  It’s a strawman argument the left in the issue uses frequently so they can give anecdotal examples of legitimately good people to make a case against an argument that never existed on the other side. 

[Mark Davis 435]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Some problems here:

- The way this admin is running terrorism counterintelligence & enforcement.

- The fact that so many other terror & extremist ideologies are at the root of attacks.

I mean I’m willing to do a hot potato type back and forth naming terror attacks over the past 5, 10, 25 years you can pick the length. I’ll choose naming Muslim extremist terror attacks. I’ll give you the field, pick which group you want. Again before we go down this road, not every attack or scumbag person who commits terror is a Muslim extremist, but the problem is very disproportionate in that community specifically in certain regions of the globe. We are being so foolish that we can’t just say that and act accordingly. 

[Hardcore troubadour 16,013]

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Some problems here:

- The way this admin is running terrorism counterintelligence & enforcement.

- The fact that so many other terror & extremist ideologies are at the root of attacks.

Others? Like who? 

[SaintsInDome2006 757]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Others? Like who? 

Left wing to right wing, communist to anarchist, ethnonationalist to environmentalist. I wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI & IC has over a score of classifications. And that’s excluding foreign actors like Iran, North Korea (Trump’s friend), China, Russia.

[JuneJuly 213]

4 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Fnord, I consider you smart so I'm going to try to word this carefully.  The bolded shows an utter and complete lack of comprehension of what I've repeatedly said, including the very post you quoted, where I specifically said "concentration of Muslims."  The request in the bolded to show "every single Muslim" is silly, TimHauck-level stuff.  I expect better from you.   

16 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

I mean I’m willing to do a hot potato type back and forth naming terror attacks over the past 5, 10, 25 years you can pick the length. I’ll choose naming Muslim extremist terror attacks. I’ll give you the field, pick which group you want. Again before we go down this road, not every attack or scumbag person who commits terror is a Muslim extremist, but the problem is very disproportionate in that community specifically in certain regions of the globe. We are being so foolish that we can’t just say that and act accordingly. 

Total beatdowns.  

[jerryskids 7,189]

2 hours ago, Fnord said:

Respectfully, no, it doesn't. Your "concentration of Muslims" argument is essentially the same as saying "wherever there's a few Muslims" IMO. Which is also farcical, as it does not take a concentration of anything for one or two zealots to plot an attack.

 

Dude, just stop with this. You can hate Jerry's guts all you want and have all the opinions you'd like. I will judge folks based on how they interact with me primarily, then on how they interact with others. Again, respectfully, IDGAF about your opinion of Jerry, much like IDGAF about his opinion of you. I appreciate both of you as intelligent posters with disparate views. You're both pretty nasty to each other, and I want no part of it.

You can interpret it as "wherever there are a few Muslims," but that's disingenuous or intentionally trying to miss my point.  I'm not talking about a couple of Muslim doctors who buy houses near each other.

Nor am I talking about Dearborn, although I'm glad you brought that up.  My wife grew up in Dearborn Heights, and speaks fondly of her Arabic friends from the 70s and 80s.  In Dearborn we are looking at multiple generations of assimilation to get to where they are today.  Now, you might argue that other groups, given multiple generations, might have similar results.  They might, I guess.  The difference, though, is that a lot of these folks came from places like Lebanon, which has been majority Christian in the past and still has a high Christian population, so there is a history of co-existence.  Furthermore, they didn't come from radicalized places in the first place.

So to be clear, by "concentrations of Muslims" I mean large groups from radicalized origins, largely recent.  As evidence of my concern I present... pretty much anywhere in Europe which opened their borders to such folks.  I'd rather that not happen here, but I guess that makes me a bigot.  I apologize for not being clear, and appreciate the correction.   

[Fnord 2,634]

19 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

The problem people with my view and your view have coming together is you frame it in my point of view needing to show you every single Muslim is this way. Of course they are not. It frustrates me to have that argument constantly used when it’s not the point of view of the vast majority of people who see this the way I do. I’m not sure if it’s intentional or if you fail to understand the viewpoint. 

See when it comes to terrorism, unfortunately it’s your side that needs to bat 1.000, not mine. If this were a one off incident somewhere of an immigrant becoming radicalized then ok.  Thats not what’s happening and statistically you know that.  Thats not bigoted, that’s numeric and statistical fact. I’m not willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans for this Pollyanna belief that we can bring in people from these lands and know who the good guys are.  It’s never been proven to be so anywhere in the West when it comes to radical Islam.

 

I said specifically in my post that some of those people are bad, with bad intentions. I know you can't show me every Muslim is that way, because, as you admit, they are not. Just like I cannot assure you that they are all kind-hearted, hard-working straight shooters. But you and Jerry are still posting in a manner that essentially says "the religion is the problem" and when a group of adherents get together, they cannot assimilate. Now if I'm misinterpreting here, apologies. I understand you are not trying to be bigoted, which is why we're having a respectful back and forth, as my tolerance for real bigotry is zero. But lack of intention does not mean it isn't coming off that way. Again, JMHO. You also at least infer that "radical Islam" and just plain Islam are interchangeable, which I strongly disagree with.

Being unwilling to sacrifice American lives is a great ideal to strive for. Natural born Americans commit more violent crimes than immigrants. That is also numeric and statistical fact. But we're not crusading against them, or everyone of the same ethnicity, religion, or culture as them. This is the crux of my argument. I think most organized religion is bullshit, so injecting that into the conversation isn't going to move me. It's just more likely to make me think someone is a bigot.

 

[Fnord 2,634]

9 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

Total beatdowns.  

Oh good. The second biggest waste of bytes on the bored is back. And so is Horsemanure's third alias in my ignore list. Welcome back, and kindly GFY violently.

[SaintsInDome2006 757]

37 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

I mean I’m willing to do a hot potato type back and forth naming terror attacks over the past 5, 10, 25 years you can pick the length. I’ll choose naming Muslim extremist terror attacks. I’ll give you the field, pick which group you want. Again before we go down this road, not every attack or scumbag person who commits terror is a Muslim extremist, but the problem is very disproportionate in that community specifically in certain regions of the globe. We are being so foolish that we can’t just say that and act accordingly. 

I’m aware of the DC shooter. He was vetted by Trump DOD, Trump CIA & Trump ICE (yes as well as Biden DOS & ICE).

The NO attacker was an American, born here, right? So was the Ft. Hood attacker IIRC. The Orlando attacker as well.

Besides 9/11/01, which involved Saudis who received the exact sort of favoritism Trump is showing now, what’s an example of a foreigner coming here & attacking us we should look to? Is it DC alone?

[Fnord 2,634]

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You can interpret it as "wherever there are a few Muslims," but that's disingenuous or intentionally trying to miss my point.  I'm not talking about a couple of Muslim doctors who buy houses near each other.

Nor am I talking about Dearborn, although I'm glad you brought that up.  My wife grew up in Dearborn Heights, and speaks fondly of her Arabic friends from the 70s and 80s.  In Dearborn we are looking at multiple generations of assimilation to get to where they are today.  Now, you might argue that other groups, given multiple generations, might have similar results.  They might, I guess.  The difference, though, is that a lot of these folks came from places like Lebanon, which has been majority Christian in the past and still has a high Christian population, so there is a history of co-existence.  Furthermore, they didn't come from radicalized places in the first place.

So to be clear, by "concentrations of Muslims" I mean large groups from radicalized origins, largely recent.  As evidence of my concern I present... pretty much anywhere in Europe which opened their borders to such folks.  I'd rather that not happen here, but I guess that makes me a bigot.  I apologize for not being clear, and appreciate the correction.   

Thank you for the clarification.

I did not mention Dearborn, that was someone else, but my community has a history of opening its arms to immigrants, so there are some similarities. I actually employ some first generation American kids from east African Muslim immigrants, as well as several folks that immigrated themselves. Now obviously my employer has SOME standards (insert insult directed at me here), so it is unlikely I would encounter an openly militant zealot at work. What I see is assimilation, to varying degrees. I do not go home with them, so I suppose there is a nonzero chance that they are plotting to blow up my hospital and murder everyone within it. But I choose to believe that is not the case and am confident in my safety.

You're good people Jerry. Thanks for the convo. You too @Mark Davis.

[jerryskids 7,189]

17 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I said specifically in my post that some of those people are bad, with bad intentions. I know you can't show me every Muslim is that way, because, as you admit, they are not. Just like I cannot assure you that they are all kind-hearted, hard-working straight shooters. But you and Jerry are still posting in a manner that essentially says "the religion is the problem" and when a group of adherents get together, they cannot assimilate. Now if I'm misinterpreting here, apologies. I understand you are not trying to be bigoted, which is why we're having a respectful back and forth, as my tolerance for real bigotry is zero. But lack of intention does not mean it isn't coming off that way. Again, JMHO. You also at least infer that "radical Islam" and just plain Islam are interchangeable, which I strongly disagree with.

Being unwilling to sacrifice American lives is a great ideal to strive for. Natural born Americans commit more violent crimes than immigrants. That is also numeric and statistical fact. But we're not crusading against them, or everyone of the same ethnicity, religion, or culture as them. This is the crux of my argument. I think most organized religion is bullshit, so injecting that into the conversation isn't going to move me. It's just more likely to make me think someone is a bigot.

 

Again, not the religion, the culture in radicalized areas which is built on the religion.

[jerryskids 7,189]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Thank you for the clarification.

I did not mention Dearborn, that was someone else, but my community has a history of opening its arms to immigrants, so there are some similarities. I actually employ some first generation American kids from east African Muslim immigrants, as well as several folks that immigrated themselves. Now obviously my employer has SOME standards (insert insult directed at me here), so it is unlikely I would encounter an openly militant zealot at work. What I see is assimilation, to varying degrees. I do not go home with them, so I suppose there is a nonzero chance that they are plotting to blow up my hospital and murder everyone within it. But I choose to believe that is not the case and am confident in my safety.

You're good people Jerry. Thanks for the convo. You too @Mark Davis.

Sorry, I must have confused you with @dogcows  

[Fnord 2,634]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Again, not the religion, the culture in radicalized areas which is built on the religion.

Sure. But we can find examples of wayward religious freaks of every stripe willing to kill for their ideals the whole world over. And these types tend to congregate together, do they not?

[jerryskids 7,189]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Sure. But we can find examples of wayward religious freaks of every stripe willing to kill for their ideals the whole world over. And these types tend to congregate together, do they not?

Well sure, and we should (and do) keep a close eye on the Branch Davidian types when they arise.

But it's a matter of degrees.  It seems like your entire argument is "there might be some whackjobs in any group, so we shouldn't treat any groups differently."  I disagree with this approach as it is a crappy risk assessment strategy.

[JuneJuly 213]

Crazy how they fail with simple logic.  It's a miracle they can work and function as adults. 

[The Real timschochet 7,535]

58 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

Just read this after I responded. My feelings exactly. Is a total misrepresentation of what I’ve said and my feelings at the very least. I’m not saying this of FNord in particular as it’s possible he misconstrued it, but it’s never been my belief every single Muslim is that way.  It’s a strawman argument the left in the issue uses frequently so they can give anecdotal examples of legitimately good people to make a case against an argument that never existed on the other side. 

Let’s agree that we don’t want any radical Muslims in this country. 

Now the problem: how do we determine who the radical ones are? Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that there is no way to do this. Therefore we should simply exclude them all on behalf of safety concerns (if I am misunderstanding you please let me know.) I find this to be unacceptable. I’m not willing to do it, not willing to support any politicians who promote this way of thinking. For me it’s a red line. 

I agree with @Fnord that your position is a bigoted one but that does not make you a bigot. 

[The Real timschochet 7,535]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Well sure, and we should (and do) keep a close eye on the Branch Davidian types when they arise.

But it's a matter of degrees.  It seems like your entire argument is "there might be some whackjobs in any group, so we shouldn't treat any groups differently."  I disagree with this approach as it is a crappy risk assessment strategy.

But stating “this person is a Muslim, therefore he is a greater risk threat, therefore I am not allowing him to come here” is ALSO a crappy risk assessment strategy; IMO, far worse than the one you’re criticizing. 

[Fnord 2,634]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Well sure, and we should (and do) keep a close eye on the Branch Davidian types when they arise.

But it's a matter of degrees.  It seems like your entire argument is "there might be some whackjobs in any group, so we shouldn't treat any groups differently."  I disagree with this approach as it is a crappy risk assessment strategy.

I wouldn't go that far, some groups should absolutely be treated differently. No issues with that. What I object to is the consistent grouping of large populations of people together that have little in common other than place of origin, skin color, or religion and ascribing the actions of a few freaks in that cohort to the entire group. Like, yaknow, calling all R's racists or all D's pedos.

I'll also point out, at the risk of ruining a good run of not mentioning Voldemort, that the current admin has zero interest in the Branch Davidian types, and has aligned budgets and priorities accordingly. Essentially as far as they're concerned, there is no such thing as domestic right wing terrorists.

[jerryskids 7,189]

34 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I said specifically in my post that some of those people are bad, with bad intentions. I know you can't show me every Muslim is that way, because, as you admit, they are not. Just like I cannot assure you that they are all kind-hearted, hard-working straight shooters. But you and Jerry are still posting in a manner that essentially says "the religion is the problem" and when a group of adherents get together, they cannot assimilate. Now if I'm misinterpreting here, apologies. I understand you are not trying to be bigoted, which is why we're having a respectful back and forth, as my tolerance for real bigotry is zero. But lack of intention does not mean it isn't coming off that way. Again, JMHO. You also at least infer that "radical Islam" and just plain Islam are interchangeable, which I strongly disagree with.

Being unwilling to sacrifice American lives is a great ideal to strive for. Natural born Americans commit more violent crimes than immigrants. That is also numeric and statistical fact. But we're not crusading against them, or everyone of the same ethnicity, religion, or culture as them. This is the crux of my argument. I think most organized religion is bullshit, so injecting that into the conversation isn't going to move me. It's just more likely to make me think someone is a bigot.

 

Regarding the bolded, while they are not interchangeable, Islam suffers from the lack of a reformation, and also a lack of a leader who could steer the greater religion.

 

[jerryskids 7,189]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

But stating “this person is a Muslim, therefore he is a greater risk threat, therefore I am not allowing him to come here” is ALSO a crappy risk assessment strategy; IMO, far worse than the one you’re criticizing. 

And here is another person who is making no attempt to understand what I am saying.  Carry on.   

[Fnord 2,634]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Regarding the bolded, while they are not interchangeable, Islam suffers from the lack of a reformation, and also a lack of a leader who could steer the greater religion.

 

I know. But like I said, nobody is going to gain much ground on me with the religion argument. I despise the three main ones more or less equally and while I acknowledge the reformations and the differences they brought about, it's all still bullshit from my perspective. Anyone willing to kill over their faith is a POS.

[Mark Davis 435]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

I said specifically in my post that some of those people are bad, with bad intentions. I know you can't show me every Muslim is that way, because, as you admit, they are not. Just like I cannot assure you that they are all kind-hearted, hard-working straight shooters. But you and Jerry are still posting in a manner that essentially says "the religion is the problem" and when a group of adherents get together, they cannot assimilate. Now if I'm misinterpreting here, apologies. I understand you are not trying to be bigoted, which is why we're having a respectful back and forth, as my tolerance for real bigotry is zero. But lack of intention does not mean it isn't coming off that way. Again, JMHO. You also at least infer that "radical Islam" and just plain Islam are interchangeable, which I strongly disagree with.

Being unwilling to sacrifice American lives is a great ideal to strive for. Natural born Americans commit more violent crimes than immigrants. That is also numeric and statistical fact. But we're not crusading against them, or everyone of the same ethnicity, religion, or culture as them. This is the crux of my argument. I think most organized religion is bullshit, so injecting that into the conversation isn't going to move me. It's just more likely to make me think someone is a bigot.

 

The religion is not the problem, the propensity for violence, extremism, and wanting to bring the ideals of that extremism here rather than assimilate to the West is where I believe the problem is.  I have no problem with someone who wants to worship differently than me, I have a problem when security concerns come from taking a subset of people into this country who statistically we know are disproportionately likely to be risks.  The whole religion or race of the people involved couldn't mean less to me.  I don't care if you wear a red sweater.  But if you tell me 100 white men in red sweaters are walking around my city today, and 2 of those men may pull out a rifle and shoot me because they don't like the way I live, then I'd tell you I don't want the guys in the red sweaters walking around my city.  I don't dislike red sweaters, I just don't want the threat.  Again, let's not strawman this example, but to be honest nobody can tell us what the fail rate is for catching the bad elements when we bring people in from say Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.  Not all terrorists are Muslim, not all Muslims believe in this extreme version of their religion, but we dance around the fact and reality that they do disproportionately exist in these areas and we cannot possibly weed out who is good and who is bad when picking refugees.  The way of life in these areas show that majorities either want to live in that society or tacitly accept it.  Otherwise they wouldn't exist.  I submit to you Afghanistan.  We never could hold the countryside, they didn't want our values.

To the second paragraph. again you are debating an argument I didn't make.  I'm not in this instance making any inference about immigrants as a whole.  I support legal immigration and even the need for work visas for some of those who I would term economic migrants.  I grew up in an area that relied on their labor.  And my arguments aren't to avoid being called a bigot.  Not to be a slap at you, but honestly should any of us be upset if anyone on an internet message board called us a name?  I'm not offended by it, I just think you're wrong.  And I'm secure enough in my belief and I know where my views come from that it has nothing to do with race/religion.  I honestly think those who dismiss views that differ from theirs as bigoted is a lazy argument. I'm not saying you're doing that, but there are those who do.  It's been my experience in business that those the numbers don't agree with, often use words of emotion to try and distract from those realities.  I feel that way about this.  This should be a business decision for the safety of our country, not an emotional one.

 

[Horseman 2,687]

10 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I know. But like I said, nobody is going to gain much ground on me with the religion argument. I despise the three main ones more or less equally and while I acknowledge the reformations and the differences they brought about, it's all still bullshit from my perspective. Anyone willing to kill over their faith is a POS.

JFC

You're doing the same thing with Jerry over and over and over again.  In this post you're desperately trying to lump Islam in with the other religions, again. It's not!  When you're in Dubai you're not in the same public transportation as the women. It's man-camel-dog-woman in that order. Period.   You're wholly unqualified to express degrees or similarness with your sheltered USA experiences with this religion.  

[TimHauck 3,395]

Man, a Muslim terror attack really inspires the bigots to come out of the woodwork to post in the GC after having previously disappeared 

[Mark Davis 435]

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m aware of the DC shooter. He was vetted by Trump DOD, Trump CIA & Trump ICE (yes as well as Biden DOS & ICE).

The NO attacker was an American, born here, right? So was the Ft. Hood attacker IIRC. The Orlando attacker as well.

Besides 9/11/01, which involved Saudis who received the exact sort of favoritism Trump is showing now, what’s an example of a foreigner coming here & attacking us we should look to? Is it DC alone?

I'm not going to get into the whole Trump thing.  If you want to blame Trump I can't stop you and in reality isn't relevant to this part of the discussion.  But if we weren't accepting people from these dangerous regions to begin with, which of these people you mentioned would have been in the US to begin with?  The Ft Hood shooter, his parents were Palestinian.    The Orlando shooter, his parents were Afghan.  Your own statements give examples of how this policy has failed us.

 

[JuneJuly 213]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Man, a Muslim terror attack really inspires the bigots to come out of the woodwork to post in the GC after having previously disappeared 

Metal helmet not smart enough to join the conversation, instead just takes the opportunity to call everyone a bigot. 

[Mark Davis 435]

57 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Thank you for the clarification.

I did not mention Dearborn, that was someone else, but my community has a history of opening its arms to immigrants, so there are some similarities. I actually employ some first generation American kids from east African Muslim immigrants, as well as several folks that immigrated themselves. Now obviously my employer has SOME standards (insert insult directed at me here), so it is unlikely I would encounter an openly militant zealot at work. What I see is assimilation, to varying degrees. I do not go home with them, so I suppose there is a nonzero chance that they are plotting to blow up my hospital and murder everyone within it. But I choose to believe that is not the case and am confident in my safety.

You're good people Jerry. Thanks for the convo. You too @Mark Davis.

All good.  We can even get chippy in it and I'm ok with that, I can be that way too.  It's ok to disagree and discuss.  To me it's always beneficial to understand why someone believes differently than I do.

[SaintsInDome2006 757]

8 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

I'm not going to get into the whole Trump thing.  If you want to blame Trump I can't stop you and in reality isn't relevant to this part of the discussion.  But if we weren't accepting people from these dangerous regions to begin with, which of these people you mentioned would have been in the US to begin with?  The Ft Hood shooter, his parents were Palestinian.    The Orlando shooter, his parents were Afghan.  Your own statements give examples of how this policy has failed us.

Ok, right, the immigrant parents *didn’t attack, right? The son who was raised in America did. 
 

You want to talk culture, not policy. Fine. How many mass killings have we had in this country? Plenty besides Islamists. Our country is so crazy we argue over how to count mass murders. That’s *our culture he was influenced by. The ideology is real, but he grew up here. And we make it as *easy as possible for these social monsters to get guns, and armor, & the rest of it.

[TimHauck 3,395]

8 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

Metal helmet not smart enough to join the conversation, instead just takes the opportunity to call everyone a bigot. 

I’ve been in the conversation, sharing video of numerous heroes and correcting @jerryskids’ fake news trying to cast doubt that at least one of the heroes was Muslim.

And I didn’t say everyone, I was mostly referring to you and @Reality.

[Mark Davis 435]

44 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Let’s agree that we don’t want any radical Muslims in this country. 

Now the problem: how do we determine who the radical ones are? Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that there is no way to do this. Therefore we should simply exclude them all on behalf of safety concerns (if I am misunderstanding you please let me know.) I find this to be unacceptable. I’m not willing to do it, not willing to support any politicians who promote this way of thinking. For me it’s a red line. 

I agree with @Fnord that your position is a bigoted one but that does not make you a bigot. 

You state my belief fairly.  I've seen no evidence we can vet them, quite the contrary.  So to then be willing to say to hell with it, let's let them in anyway, we are sacrificing American lives and stability to look the other way.  To me it's just simple numbers, the odds and our experiences say that's what is happening.  I understand that's a red line for you, for me it's a red line on the other side.  I would never support any politician who I view has their head in the sand or wants to be deemed politically correct or non bigoted by those on the left. 

Again, my feelings aren't going to be hurt by the terminology.  I almost chuckle a bit at it.  I think it does your argument more harm than good but it's ok if you want to make it.  It feels like for those on the left of this issue, that the reality forces the need to use terms like bigot so they feel they have the righteous high ground.  If all of a sudden we start having men from Norway begin to radicalize and commit terrorist attacks, I'll support banning entries from that region as well.  However, just because these people are a different race or religion, I'm not going to just look the other way to the problems in immigration from those areas in order to not be labeled a pejorative term.

[TimHauck 3,395]

3 hours ago, Fnord said:

Respectfully, no, it doesn't. Your "concentration of Muslims" argument is essentially the same as saying "wherever there's a few Muslims" IMO. Which is also farcical, as it does not take a concentration of anything for one or two zealots to plot an attack.

 

Dude, just stop with this. You can hate Jerry's guts all you want and have all the opinions you'd like. I will judge folks based on how they interact with me primarily, then on how they interact with others. Again, respectfully, IDGAF about your opinion of Jerry, much like IDGAF about his opinion of you. I appreciate both of you as intelligent posters with disparate views. You're both pretty nasty to each other, and I want no part of it.

I don’t hate Jerry.  But his hatred of Muslims is unhealthy

[Mark Davis 435]

12 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Ok, right, the immigrant parents *didn’t attack, right? The son who was raised in America did. 
 

You want to talk culture, not policy. Fine. How many mass killings have we had in this country? Plenty besides Islamists. Our country is so crazy we argue over how to count mass murders. That’s *our culture he was influenced by. The ideology is real, but he grew up here. And we make it as *easy as possible for these social monsters to get guns, and armor, & the rest of it.

Yes I would say confidently that radical Islamic culture in places like Afghanistan are not compatible with the values and lifestyles of the West.  I wouldn't think that's so controversial.

The gun debate is not one I take on much because I see both sides but the reality of that is that if you banned new sales today, our great grandkids would be dead and gone and there would be plenty of guns circling around.  We both know citizens aren't going to just turn them in even certain types we might could even find common ground on shouldn't exist.  If certain types were banned or more security checks were put in place, I'd be fine with it.

[SaintsInDome2006 757]

5 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

Yes I would say confidently that radical Islamic culture in places like Afghanistan are not compatible with the values and lifestyles of the West.  I wouldn't think that's so controversial.

It’s not, but in that specific example - Afghanistan - you’re proving too much. Those people came here because the Taliban or AQ would’ve killed them because they *weren’t Islamists.

[jerryskids 7,189]

20 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I don’t hate Jerry.  But his hatred of Muslims is unhealthy

I'm done engaging with you, tard.  Sorry, moderate tard.