Are you a well-"educated" modern person?

[Billie]

They still don't know if that 3rd person is involved with the other 2, I think?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mass-shooting-san-bernardino-california-1.3347432

 

 

[DarthFed]

Apparently he was running away from the vehicle they were in.  Chances are he is at least somewhat involved.  I've also read that they think there was an argument at this Christmas party and one of the suspects left and apparently came back with friends and shot up the place.  Seems like not much is confirmed yet.

 

[calitennis127]

Moxie wrote:
Adding onto your point with the Guardian piece, that the current crop of Republican candidates are stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment to a high degree, this is the latest from Trump, claiming that “thousands of Muslims cheered on Sept. 11th in Jersey City, NJ. Personally, I live fewer than 10 miles as the crow flies from Jersey City, (and about 1.5 from the WTC, so I was interested,) and I have never heard of this or seen anything to back this up. And The Donald doesn’t back it up, either. He simply insists that it’s true. He thinks he can even bully facts.

Apparently Trump has been retweeting from white supremacists. How is it possible that a US Presidential candidate feels that he can win votes in 21st century America doing this? I find the primaries this time around utterly baffling. I thought Obama’s two wins meant that the GOP would have to reach out to new demographies, but it feels from the outside that they’re doubling down. The demographics are awful for them, and will only get worse, yet they are ruthlessly focussed on the middle American white male. Even if this is just a tactic to win the Republican ticket, this has to be pyrrhic. They might as well start preparing for Hillary to take over, how on earth will whoever wins the GOP ticket be able to reach out to the American electorate after this? That’s a long trip back to the centre, and their base will be upset by any retreat

If you knew anything about American politics beyond CNN-BBC cliches, you would know that the Republican Party has been endlessly talking about wooing black voters for the last 40 years, and despite all of their outreach efforts, they still lose 90%-plus of the African-American vote. The most prominent Republicans also have by and large been vehement supporters of illegal immigration; George Bush did absolutely nothing to control the border. Yet, Latinos have still overwhelmingly voted for the Democrats. And, in fact, Latinos in states such as Arizona in the last 20 years have at times shown a propensity to support candidates who advocate border control in proportions around 50%.

 

 

[calitennis127]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/the-us-debate-around-islam-makes-george-w-bush-look-progressive

 

Thanks Federberg for posting this brilliant article. How many errors can someone make in one piece?

Let me just start with this one, since you and Moxie are condemning Trump for being anti-factual when he is actually being factual:

"Meanwhile, in the past year, white Christian Americans have walked into schools and churches and slaughtered children and Bible study groups, while black men are being gunned down in the streets by the people they pay to protect them."

Would you please like to specify who the white Christian Americans have been who walked into schools and churches in the past year and slaughtered people? None of them were Christian.....in fact, the shooter in Oregon was an atheist who asked the students if they were Christian and shot them first if they said "yes". Talk about bullying the facts.

Also, the author of this article is clearly ignorant about Islam and does not know anything about it. Muhammad himself participated in decapitations, ordered for assassinations, and led armies. When ISIS militants invoke his example, they are not making anything up. I know that is not palatable to you, but the facts are the facts.

 

 

[DarthFed]

One suspect identified so far, a Syed Farook.  Muslim or not it is no guarantee that he has terrorist affiliations or shares their ideals, may just be some guy who knew and hated some of the people he killed.

 

[calitennis127]

I’m not sure my answer would be different for any refugee family regardless of where they come from. It’s easy to see demons when looking at Islam as a religion or looking at the crowd.

The task of government leaders is to look at patterns and make decisions for the good of millions of people. Generalizing is an inevitable part of designing government policy on immigration or anything else.

But muslim people on an individual basis are as warm and human as anyone else.

When you are talking about setting an immigration policy, you are not talking about judging people on an individual basis. The decision is a matter of what is good in the grand scheme of things for the millions of people in your society. Because of this, you must examine patterns and general tendencies. This does not mean everyone in a dubious group is bad as an individual.

All I can say, in terms of islamophobia and fear of ISIS, is that the concerns are legitimate and even rational.

If Islamophobia is "irrational fear of Islam and Muslims", then how can it be legitimate and "rational" to fear ISIS?

 But in terms of actual real human interactions, how can anyone say definitively that they would reject a Syrian family, without actually meeting them? I couldn’t…

That is not the issue being debated. The issue being debated for Western leaders is whether it is advisable to allow hundreds of thousands of more Muslims into Western countries, given that we already have bloated welfare states, dysfunctional inner cities, and ever-growing surveillance programs to track down Islamic terrorists. The decisions that leaders make are first and foremost about what is best for the citizens under their jurisdiction. Setting an immigration policy has nothing to do with how you or I or anyone else feel about individual people; that is irrelevant for leaders who are making decisions that impact millions.

 

 

[Moxie]

Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
Moxie wrote:
Adding onto your point with the Guardian piece, that the current crop of Republican candidates are stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment to a high degree, this is the latest from Trump, claiming that “thousands of Muslims cheered on Sept. 11th in Jersey City, NJ. Personally, I live fewer than 10 miles as the crow flies from Jersey City, (and about 1.5 from the WTC, so I was interested,) and I have never heard of this or seen anything to back this up. And The Donald doesn’t back it up, either. He simply insists that it’s true. He thinks he can even bully facts.

Apparently Trump has been retweeting from white supremacists. How is it possible that a US Presidential candidate feels that he can win votes in 21st century America doing this? I find the primaries this time around utterly baffling. I thought Obama’s two wins meant that the GOP would have to reach out to new demographies, but it feels from the outside that they’re doubling down. The demographics are awful for them, and will only get worse, yet they are ruthlessly focussed on the middle American white male. Even if this is just a tactic to win the Republican ticket, this has to be pyrrhic. They might as well start preparing for Hillary to take over, how on earth will whoever wins the GOP ticket be able to reach out to the American electorate after this? That’s a long trip back to the centre, and their base will be upset by any retreat</blockquote>
If you knew anything about American politics beyond CNN-BBC cliches, you would know that the Republican Party has been endlessly talking about wooing black voters for the last 40 years, and despite all of their outreach efforts, they still lose 90%-plus of the African-American vote. The most prominent Republicans also have by and large been vehement supporters of illegal immigration; George Bush did absolutely nothing to control the border. Yet, Latinos have still overwhelmingly voted for the Democrats. And, in fact, Latinos in states such as Arizona in the last 20 years have supported candidates who argue for border control far more than Republican candidates who have been for open borders.

I don't watch CNN or BBC.  If the Republican party was really trying to woo the African American vote, they might start by not treating them as if they are just sucking on federal services, and not gerrymandering voting districts so as to water the African-American vote because they suspect it goes Democrat.  I'd be interested to hear how, otherwise, you think that the Republicans have been courting the AA vote over the last 40 years.  With what carrot?  And please back up how the most prominent Republicans have been vehement supporters of illegal immigration.  That would be interesting.  Apparently, it is lost on you that no one exactly supports illegal immigration.  The nuances are more about the notion that illegal immigration happens, that the cog-in-wheel of our lower-level worker systems depends on immigrants/migrants.  I'm not sure I believe your assertion that Latinos voters have pushed for tighter border controls, or that Republican candidates/seated representatives have been more than less in favor of open borders.  I'd like to see some reference/stats for that.

 

[Federberg]

Well said Moxie. I too would like to see this data. It's sad that the party of Lincoln has moved in the direction that it has. And I must say I was somewhat surprised by Cali's comment too! Ever since LBJ lost the Southern Democrats, it's not been clear to me at all that the GOP was any friend of the black America.

 

[DarthFed]

Apparently the San Bernardino shooter has been linked to ISIS.  I must say the government seemed to drop the ball here.  The guy goes to Saudi Arabia and comes back with a mail-order bride and then buys enough weapons and ammunition for a small army and it all goes undetected.  Pretty scary thought

And also to revisit a recent thought...are you sure we want thousands of nameless Syrian refugees in this country?

 

[Moxie]

Apparently the San Bernardino shooter has been linked to ISIS. I must say the government seemed to drop the ball here. The guy goes to Saudi Arabia and comes back with a mail-order bride and then buys enough weapons and ammunition for a small army and it all goes undetected. Pretty scary thought And also to revisit a recent thought…are you sure we want thousands of nameless Syrian refugees in this country?

You make a good argument for a nationwide database for people trying to buy guns.  That seems reasonable.

As to the refugees, why would they be "nameless?"  Do you really want us to turn our backs on thousands of blameless people fleeing persecution and fear for their lives?  Aren't we founded on being a haven for the dispossessed, and for those "yearning to breathe free?"

 

[DarthFed]

They're nameless because they almost certainly won't have to produce a passport or any other form of identification to get in here.  And while 99% are probably decent, innocent people there would almost certainly be some ISIS members posing as refugees.

it is a different world that we live in today. Our country is also founded on bearing arms without any restriction but this was before assault rifles made it easy to kill dozens of people in seconds.  Slavery used to be just fine here too.  There are such things as Amendments after all.

The reality is we no longer live in the same world, if we made a habit of accepting every immigrant here no questions asked there will be tons of terrorist attacks. So to Syrian refugees as heartless as it sounds...hell no I don't want them anywhere near me.

 

[britbox]

The people who want refugees pouring into the country should have to billet them (provide their accommodation and food) and be held partly responsible for their behaviour.

 

 

[Moxie]

They’re nameless because they almost certainly won’t have to produce a passport or any other form of identification to get in here. And while 99% are probably decent, innocent people there would almost certainly be some ISIS members posing as refugees. it is a different world that we live in today. Our country is also founded on bearing arms without any restriction but this was before assault rifles made it easy to kill dozens of people in seconds. Slavery used to be just fine here too. There are such things as Amendments after all. The reality is we no longer live in the same world, if we made a habit of accepting every immigrant here no questions asked there will be tons of terrorist attacks. So to Syrian refugees as heartless as it sounds…hell no I don’t want them anywhere near me.

Our country is not founded on bearing arms without restrictions.  It's founded on democracy, religious freedom (the Pilgrims, remember?) a separation of Church and State, and the notion that we are idealistic enough to believe that we can create a better, freer society.  I agree that we have to be cautious, and that the world has changed, but we also have to be generous.  That small percentage, (you say 1%) of refugees that might be moles is nothing compared to the wackos that already live here and are armed to the teeth.  You should be mindful of who and what you're afraid of.  When you say "hell no I don’t want them anywhere near me," you're talking about people who are mostly, by your estimation, innocent, and fleeing persecution.  More than likely, your own people came to the US with the same goals and ideals, as mine did, as refugees seeking a better life in the US.  It's not right to slam the door behind ourselves.  We have to count on the FBI and the CIA to vet the majority of these people.  And we should also change some of our gun laws to protect us from crazies and domestic terrorists, too.  The avenues to a safer society are many.  But becoming a closed-minded and racist people is surely not who we want to be.  We can't just fear people because they're Muslim.

 

[Federberg]

Well said Moxie. And furthermore slavery was never "fine". It was even written into the declaration of independence..

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But the contradiction of slavery was avoided by the founders. Your first President freed his slaves for goodness sakes. In what way is the world so different today that it should be acceptable to take a backward step? That makes no sense at all. I continue to hope that America returns to what it always aspired to be... the land of the free and the hope of the brave. Shutting your borders to people who wouldn't have even been refugees but for your own failed policy is as yellow as yellow can be I'm afraid. It is up to your security and intelligence apparatus to ensure that legitimate people get through, and it should be up to sensible domestic policy - not letting people who are barred from flying be able to buy automatic rifles with ease is a good start - to further reduce the risk of domestic terrorism

 

[britbox]

@federberg I've no idea what slavery has to do with the situation in Syria.

All men aren't created equal. Everyone is born into circumstances that they have no control over. The notion that everyone is born equal might be a nice idea, but in reality it's absurd.

The United States has always had border controls.  I couldn't just up sticks and move to the US (not that I'd want to), I'd have to go through due process... get a green card etc...

The US isn't making a "special case" for refugees - it's using the same border controls that apply to everybody else.

I'm sure most Syrians would rather live in Syria in any event.  Perhaps if the west stopped flooding the region with arms and playing a game of geopolitical RISK in the middle east then we may not have these issues in the first place.

@Moxie Refugees shouldn't have to travel to the US or Western Europe to find a safe haven.  The Middle East is a big place - found safe havens there backed by UN, The West, Russia and the Gulf states.

 

 

 

 

[Federberg]

@federberg I’ve no idea what slavery has to do with the situation in Syria. All men aren’t created equal. Everyone is born into circumstances that they have no control over. The notion that everyone is born equal might be a nice idea, but in reality it’s absurd. The United States has always had border controls. I couldn’t just up sticks and move to the US (not that I’d want to), I’d have to go through due process… get a green card etc… The US isn’t making a “special case” for refugees – it’s using the same border controls that apply to everybody else. I’m sure most Syrians would rather live in Syria in any event. Perhaps if the west stopped flooding the region with arms and playing a game of geopolitical RISK in the middle east then we may not have these issues in the first place. @Moxie Refugees shouldn’t have to travel to the US or Western Europe to find a safe haven. The Middle East is a big place – found safe havens there backed by UN, The West, Russia and the Gulf states.

I was responding to @Twisted post.. here's the relevant portion.."Our country is also founded on bearing arms without any restriction but this was before assault rifles made it easy to kill dozens of people in seconds. Slavery used to be just fine here too."

The refutation is sound.

 

I agree with your point about the West meddling the middle east is directly responsible for the refugee crisis. We'll have to disagree about equality. I do believe everyone is created equal, their opportunities might not be equal but one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Visa controls have nothing to do with a refugee crisis I'm afraid. The United States is a signed up member to the Geneva Convention which specifically deals with the issue of refugees. And as we already agree it is complicit in the crisis that has caused this mess. I strongly disagree that they can abrogate their responsibility and most mature politicians in the United States don't even argue that point.

 

And as for sanctuary in the middle east, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that countries in the middle east shouldn't do their bit, I'm quite sure they are, but to the extent that some of the persecution they are fleeing from is likely to be inflicted on them in a lot of those countries I don't think many serious thinkers see that as a viable solution to the largest refugee crisis since the second world war. These are the basic realities we all have to confront. Not that a lot of these countries in the middle east even have the infrastructure to handle this problem. You simply can't plead insularity when we in the west have tried to impose our own morality and values. Our presumptions are coming home to roost. In fact our very values are now being tested by something we helped start. The irony is amusing

 

 

[britbox]

The peoples of the world are not born equal friend... or maybe you can explain in what capacity?  Even if you remove circumstances... you still have genetics.  Otherwise everyone is coming out of the womb with the same physical characteristics, same IQ, same genetics. This simply is not the case and has no foundation.

My point about refugees is that you don't need to travel thousands of miles to get refuge.  Then a refugee becomes an economic migrant. If I was a refugee I'd do the same, but it is what it is.

The only point I agree with is that the Syrian mess is largely of the west's making.

 

[Federberg]

The peoples of the world are not born equal friend… or maybe you can explain in what capacity? Even if you remove circumstances… you still have genetics. Otherwise everyone is coming out of the womb with the same physical characteristics, same IQ, same genetics. This simply is not the case and has no foundation. My point about refugees is that you don’t need to travel thousands of miles to get refuge. Then a refugee becomes an economic migrant. If I was a refugee I’d do the same, but it is what it is. The only point I agree with is that the Syrian mess is largely of the west’s making.

For a start you have to define what "equal" means in this context, and for my tastes the proof would need to be empirical. When you start straying into talking about genetics I get uncomfortable. I recall sitting down and watching the BBC news at 9 in the mid 80s with a respected scientist trying to give a justification for why the West Indies team was genetically predisposed to be superior at cricket. I have read books about Jack Johnson being denied a shot at the world championship for years because "negroes are weaker than whites and besides were yellow". Every age people come up with supposed scientific facts that support the superiority of one race or people over another, each time it's refuted. I'll assume your comment is not related to the issue of race or country, but on individuals. Then yes, obviously some people are more intelligent than others, stronger than others etc. But Syrian refugees are no less disposed towards intelligence, or strength or goodness than anyone else. At least there is no evidence I have seen that says so.

 

As for the refugee crisis... this is on a scale that we haven't seen for a generation. We all have to do our bit. If we don't like it then we need to stop our governments from creating situations that cause these crises in the first place. As for where the refugees go, it makes no sense for them to be directed just to the middle east where resources are scarcer. We all have to do our bit. And creating situations that could potentially destabilise other countries in the middle east which aren't exactly super stable doesn't make much sense to me

 

[calitennis127]

 I don’t watch CNN or BBC. If the Republican party was really trying to woo the African American vote, they might start by not treating them as if they are just sucking on federal services, and not gerrymandering voting districts so as to water the African-American vote because they suspect it goes Democrat.

Moxie, anyone familiar with politics knows that both the Nixon and Reagan administrations worked tirelessly to court the African-American vote. Every election cycle Republicans talk about how their programs and their beliefs will help lift people out of poverty, including those in the inner cities. Among the reasons that Republicans cannot get the Democratic vote is that, since the 1960s and the rhetoric of that era, African-Americans have been politically hitched to anti-Western and anti-white venom beings spewed by scoundrels such as Al Sharpton, who are themselves tools of the white leftist regime. Organizations like the NAACP as well as most universities have made African-Americans believe that they are the greatest victims in history of racism and that voting for the Republicans could mean the re-introduction of apartheid. This absurd brainwashing - mostly perpetuated by white idiots - is one of the main reasons the Democrats get 90%-plus of the black vote.

I have so many stories I could tell from personal experience and the experiences of friends that I don't know where to begin. To take just one of countless examples, I have a good friend who was working in all-black inner city school in Tennessee at the time of the 2012 election. He learned from the students and their NAACP-indoctrinated parents that if Romney won the election, the country would re-introduce slavery, shut down welfare, and make condoms illegal. Does that sound like well-informed political participation to you?

The reality of the Democrat-Republican divide when it comes to race is that the Democrats have fostered the self-destruction and self-degradation of black communities across the country. The Democrats are fundamentally a wicked party that has exploited African Americans for 40 years and enslaved them to the welfare state. Black communities in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc. over the last 40+ years have all been degraded by the evil, stupid, irrational, and ignorant ideas of the Democratic Party. When it comes to race, the Democrats have a whole lot of blood on their hands.

I’d be interested to hear how, otherwise, you think that the Republicans have been courting the AA vote over the last 40 years. With what carrot? 

What carrot are they supposed to offer? They have presented their ideas just as the Democrats have, except that blacks - under the influence of leftist scoundrels like Sharpton - have chosen to vote for the Democrats. The Bush campaign as well as other campaigns (most recently those of Herman Cain and Carson) have emphasized the importance of traditional values and work ethic as keys to getting out of poverty. That black voters haven't responded to this message does not mean an attempt hasn't been made.

Your choice of the term "carrot" is very telling - and it gets to the crux of the matter. In terms of rhetoric, the Democrats much more explicitly offer government assistance through their devious and repeatedly failed promises of assisting the poor to help them get out of poverty. That is mostly why the Democrats get black votes. The end result has been a four-generation cycle of dependency with numerous black Americans hopeless at this point. The Democrats have harmed and degraded black America. White Democrats are the #1 enemy of black Americans today.

 And please back up how the most prominent Republicans have been vehement supporters of illegal immigration.

No U.S. Senator has been more outspoken about the need for amnesty than John McCain, and the Republicans chose him as their 2008 candidate (and, needless to say, Hispanic voters did not reward him for his career-long advocacy of open borders). The GOP establishment also overwhelmingly favors Rubio right now, and he has been among the most vocal supporters of amnesty in recent years. The rich execs who fund the GOP also are among the main supporters of open immigration - look up names like Singer and Adelson. The Chamber of Commerce wants illegal immigration because of cheap labor.

Also, the Bush administration did not even lift a finger to control the border from 2000 to 2008. The Republican establishment has repeatedly demonized and distanced itself from libertarians and paleoconservatives in the last 30 years who have advocated controlling the border.

 Apparently, it is lost on you that no one exactly supports illegal immigration.

Completely disagree. In a pragmatic political and economic sense, leading Democrats love illegal immigration because it will enable them to win new states in presidential elections and leading Republicans love how it will benefit big business. Also, white academics and journalists want illegal immigration because it provides moral fulfillment for them in the absence of Christianity. Having jettisoned Christianity, their new religion is "anti-fascism", "anti-racism", and "anti-discriminationism". They need to see massive demographic change to feel morally wholesome.

  The nuances are more about the notion that illegal immigration happens, that the cog-in-wheel of our lower-level worker systems depends on immigrants/migrants.

No it doesn't. Every area of work (e.g. construction) where you see a large presence of illegal immigrant workers has a majority of laborers who are native-born Americans. That is just factually incorrect.

 

 

 

[calitennis127]

Well said Moxie. I too would like to see this data. It’s sad that the party of Lincoln has moved in the direction that it has. And I must say I was somewhat surprised by Cali’s comment too! Ever since LBJ lost the Southern Democrats, it’s not been clear to me at all that the GOP was any friend of the black America.

First of all Federberg, the "party of Lincoln" was a racist party that exploited blacks in a similar way to what the Democrats do now. Lincoln did not give a damn about slavery and actually spent 30+ years of his political career advocating that blacks be deported from the country and go back to Africa; he even held a meeting with black leaders at the end of 1862 about how they were going to lead the exodus of American blacks once the war was over. This is common knowledge among historians and has been documented by, among others, the black historian Lerone Bennett, Jr. Lincoln and the Republicans from 1860-1880 did not act out of benevolence for blacks, nor do the Democrats today.

In the last 40 years, the Republicans have not gotten the black vote mostly because their stated message of limited government, economic freedom, and traditional values has not appealed to black voters. This does not mean Republicans have been anti-black or not tried to get the black vote. It just means that blacks have not voted for the Republicans.

As for being a "friend" of black America, the Democrats are black America's #1 enemy. They feed the self-annihilation and self-destruction of black communities. Everything they say and do is pure poison for blacks. If you really want to see blacks have it better in America, then the first political step you should want to see is the discrediting of the Democrats in the eyes of African-American voters and their severing ties with the Democrats for good.