KevinG Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 So refugees. Seems to be a pretty big topic, lately. More political posturing by the right in using the tragedy in Paris to fuel the out and out racism of the party. These Governors who said they will deny these refugees have no legal authority do so, and in fact would be in direct violation of the law. And the current crop of GOP candidates are just spreading xenophobic and flat out racist rhetoric. You know I would never say all Republicans are racist, cause that is not true. There is racism in both parties. However, the current leadership of the party is undoubtedly racist and xenophobic. Link to post Share on other sites
Doctor B Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 So wanting to check mass immigration when there is no way to determine background is racist? That is the most absurd argument I have ever heard. Concern about the welfare of your country and your family is racist? Trying to insure that immigrants are not here for jihadi reasons is racist? I call BS on this. Gimme a break. Maybe you need to read that conservative rag, Mother Jones , who considers that rhetoric nuts.... Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I think there are some assumptions being made here. Also, for the record, mass immigration without background checks has been an element in our country since the beginning. Link to post Share on other sites
Doctor B Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 This country has never faced the kind of terrorist threat we face now. Different times calls for different tactics. I just do not believe that questioning policy and questioning government assurances, which most of you do when the party in charge is not Democrat, should be labeled as "racist". Childish, non answer and really does nothing to answer legitimate issues. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 So wanting to check mass immigration when there is no way to determine background is racist? That is the most absurd argument I have ever heard. Concern about the welfare of your country and your family is racist? Trying to insure that immigrants are not here for jihadi reasons is racist? I call BS on this. Gimme a break. Maybe you need to read that conservative rag, Mother Jones , who considers that rhetoric nuts.... I have never mentioned that we should allow Syrian refugees en masse in this country (which by the rhetoric from the right would have you believe). There is a long and complicated process to gain refugee status and enter this country. I guess read this from Time which explains the process. http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/ A thing to note is that our current process works. Out of the 750K refugees that have been let into this country since 9/11 not one has been convicted of domestic terrorism. Also most of the current refugees are women and children. Look a things Jeb Bush had said. Only Christian Syrians should be allowed, seriously? Or how about Trump, "Well you're going to have to watch and study the mosques, because a lot of talk is going on at the on at the mosques." Quality 1st amendment principles there Mr. Trump. And of course Sen. Cruz, who also wants a religious test, because Christians are not terrorists. These comments just smack of racism. I could go on with the other guys, but I think you get the point. Listen, I want to keep America safe, I do not want a terrorist attack here (or anywhere for that matter). But history shows that current system of allowing refugees in this country works. The chance of letting in a jihadist in our country is very slim and practically non-existent. The reason these governors and GOP candidates are calling for a ban on these refugees is because they are Muslim, which in their minds Muslim = Terrorist. I just do not believe that questioning policy and questioning government assurances, which most of you do when the party in charge is not Democrat, should be labeled as "racist". Childish, non answer and really does nothing to answer legitimate issues. I believe questioning the government policies and assurances is a good thing. We do have to make sure the people that come into this country will not do us harm. But why are we not stopping people from entering this country from other places? But again the current system is working and has worked for more than a decade. There are radicalized people from all over the world. Not just radicalized people from the Middle East. And not all are radicalized because of religious reasons either. The Right is refusing these people because of their religion, because they see their religion as a threat. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 There are much easier ways for terrorists to enter the county than to pretend to be a refugee and wait out the process (which can take up to 18 months). They will either be legal citizens of the country (like the Paris attackers) or they will come here legally on a Travel or Student Visa (like the 9/11 attackers). Turning our backs on refugees in crisis due to a blanket irrational fear is wholly un-American. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I just do not believe that questioning policy and questioning government assurances, which most of you do when the party in charge is not Democrat, should be labeled as "racist". Childish, non answer and really does nothing to answer legitimate issues. I'm not convinced being vigilant of outwardly racist attitudes is childish. Link to post Share on other sites
Doctor B Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I cannot speak for anyone else. I am an immigrant. I was born in another country. America took me in, allowed me to pursue happiness, a career, education and a decent life. I am forever grateful. I believe we should have compassion and empathy and continue to take in others. I do not believe there should be a religious litmus test. However, I believe one has a right to insist on careful vetting and being cautious. I know of many foreign students denied visas after graduation. I know of families denied immigration after going through the process. Yet they abide by the law. Mass immigration, free and open borders, and inability to keep potential threats out of the country are anathema to being a sovereign nation. Those that group all who disagree with them as racist are themselves intolerant and illiberal . Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I cannot speak for anyone else. I am an immigrant. I was born in another country. America took me in, allowed me to pursue happiness, a career, education and a decent life. I am forever grateful. I believe we should have compassion and empathy and continue to take in others. I do not believe there should be a religious litmus test. However, I believe one has a right to insist on careful vetting and being cautious. I know of many foreign students denied visas after graduation. I know of families denied immigration after going through the process. Yet they abide by the law. Mass immigration, free and open borders, and inability to keep potential threats out of the country are anathema to being a sovereign nation. Those that group all who disagree with them as racist are themselves intolerant and illiberal . Hold the phone there Doctor B. I do not throw the term racist bigot out willy nilly, but it is important to point out when it occurs. I did not call the GOP racist bigots because I disagree with them. I called them racist bigots for their reasoning in opposing the Syrian refugees. That is an important distinction. I mentioned that I agree with you and we should keep our country safe. And it is the right and duty of a politician and an Americans to question the actions of our government if we feel they are not doing its job. But as I mentioned before our current system is doing a pretty good job of dealing with refugees and keeping us safe. And no one, is saying we should let the refugees in. There is a long and careful vetting process. If there is a problem with the current system, then talk about it. But I have yet to see a comment that is based in reality that points out a problem with our current refugee process. In my last post I gave quotes with links that pointed out the racist bigoted statements that the GOP candidates have said (and there many more). A religious litmus test (which is something you disagree with) by its very definition is racist bigotted. So ask yourself why do disagree with it. But while doing that remember this is something that Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz support. I am not saying that the GOP is a bunch of white hooded klan members burning crosses on a Saturday night. But when you support a religious litmus test, say mosques should be watched for radicalization, or that Muslims should not be able hold the office of President, that is racist bigoted. These are things that are not being said by the fringes, these things are being said by major candidates of the Republican Party. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 A religious litmus test (which is something you disagree with) by its very definition is racist.A religion is not a race. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 A religion is not a race. well I am glad we got that figured out then. I guess I am wrong, the GOP is perfectly in their right to exclude people based upon the God they worship. Glad we have you around Hixter. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 well I am glad we got that figured out then.Happy to help. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted November 18, 2015 Author Share Posted November 18, 2015 A religion is not a race.does this get a little blurry w/ Judaism? Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 well I am glad we got that figured out then. I guess I am wrong, the GOP is perfectly in their right to exclude people based upon the God they worship. Glad we have you around Hixter. I am glad too! Hixter for President 2016! Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 does this get a little blurry w/ Judaism? No. Judaism isn't a race, either. I suppose being anti-semitic is racist, but that technically includes a bunch of non-Jews. I think the term's meaning has changed over the last few decades. Let's just affix -phobic onto it like we do to everyone else that we don't approve of. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 'Bigot' also works Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 'Bigot' also works in an effort to be all inclusive and get the naming right, I changed racist to bigot in my post. http://viachicago.org/topic/50630-politics-2015/?p=1582770 And of course we now have done a good job, as members of the board are so apt to do, changing the direction of the conversation and skirting the hard questions. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 No. Judaism isn't a race, either. I suppose being anti-semitic is racist, but that technically includes a bunch of non-Jews. I think the term's meaning has changed over the last few decades. Let's just affix -phobic onto it like we do to everyone else that we don't approve of.But scientifically speaking, race does not exist. Judaism, like the Nation of Islam, brings with it an ethnicity. Racism and anti-ethnic bias are pretty much the same kind of shitty. The difference is one is more in line with our current anthropological and biological understanding, while the other sounds better. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 This whole topic and the way it's played out on social media has made me quite sad. Say what you will about W., after 9/11 he made it quite clear that Islam was not the enemy. Has any GOP candidate said anything like that since Paris? I understand people's fears about terrorists coming into this country's quite porous borders, but coming over as a refugee would be about the most cumbersome way to do it. Of all the articles I've read in the past 5 days, this might make me the angriest. I don't care about your general views on gun control, you cannot claim to be strong on terror and turn a blind eye to the NRA's actions here. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868 Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 And to throw a bone to my right-wing tendencies, this statement is worthy of calling for his resignation. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/politics/john-kerry-charlie-hebdo-rationale/ Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Of all the articles I've read in the past 5 days, this might make me the angriest. I don't care about your general views on gun control, you cannot claim to be strong on terror and turn a blind eye to the NRA's actions here. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2-000-terror-suspects-bought-guns-legally-report-article-1.2437868Nobody wants terrorists to buy guns, so I assume the NRA's problem is with the wording of the bill and the generally poor performance of the no-fly list (lots of false positives, etc.). Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The NRA is the voice of gun manufacturers as much, if not more, as it is of gun owners. Profit is driving the NRA as much as any political point of view. Anheuser-Busch couldn't give two shits about minors and alcoholics buying their product and the NRA couldn't give two shits about who is buying guns. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 And to throw a bone to my right-wing tendencies, this statement is worthy of calling for his resignation. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/politics/john-kerry-charlie-hebdo-rationale/ Every act has a rationale at the time, for instance Charles Manson & co felt that they had a reasonable rationale, turns out they were wrong. Whether we agree with that rationale or if the rationale is based in reality is another matter completely.The NRA is the voice of gun manufacturers as much, if not more, as it is of gun owners. Profit is driving the NRA as much as any political point of view. Anheuser-Busch couldn't give two shits about minors and alcoholics buying their product and the NRA couldn't give two shits about who is buying guns. Bingo. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Every act has a rationale at the time, for instance Charles Manson & co felt that they had a reasonable rationale, turns out they were wrong. Whether we agree with that rationale or if the rationale is based in reality is another matter completely.If every act has a rationale, then Friday's attack was no different than the attack on Charlie Hebdo in terms of rationale. He was clearly delineating a measurable difference between the attacks. And thanks for your support on the other point. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 The NRA is the voice of gun manufacturers as much, if not more, as it is of gun owners. Profit is driving the NRA as much as any political point of view.I sincerely doubt that American terrorism market is big enough to persuade the NRA and/or gun manufacturers to court their business. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts