Should the US accept Syrian Refugees?

[Cabal]

When I say "we," that's what I mean.

Then you're inaccurate and lazy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Being kind to them will make them less likely to want to retaliate, not more.

You can risk your life, but not mine. I'm not going to die on the altar of your naivete and stupidity.

 

[tod evans]

You can risk your life, but not mine. I'm not going to die on the altar of your naivete and stupidity.

Oh yes you are!

Look for Dear Reader to issue another proclamation, er..executive order, forcing states who want no part of this to capitulate...

I don't feel this is an issue for the feds, and I question if it's even an issue for state government..

County by county would be my choice with the counties who chose to accept "settlers" being required to carry private insurance and post a substantial bond, like 10X whatever the fed chipped in...

Too many view the issue as a humanitarian one when in truth it's a financial one, one group profits destroying homes in Sandville another group profits by "helping" the homeless...

Problem is tax dollars are funding both groups....

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You can risk your life, but not mine. I'm not going to die on the altar of your naivete and stupidity.

Are you that worried about it? Seven billion people in the world, I wonder how many pass daily? A hundred plus killed in France and suddenly middle America is terrified. What of the thousands around the world who were murdered that same day?

If you are truly worried about dying in a terrorist attack, you probably should turn off the news.

 

[erowe1]

You can risk your life, but not mine. I'm not going to die on the altar of your naivete and stupidity.

That is exactly the attitude you ought to have. Adopt your own individual policy, and don't impose it on anyone else. If you want to keep yourself separate from some other people, you should be free to do so.

 

[puppetmaster]

Being kind to them will make them less likely to want to retaliate, not more.

yes from 100 percent likely to 99 percent. If Mexico was destabilizing and attacking the US, as an able bodied male would I run to the country causing harm to my family...deserting my family, leaving them to fend for themselves and go with love in my heart to Mexico?
Even if you could somehow say yes to that, is that the kind of person we would want in our country? A person that deserts a family in need.

 

[erowe1]

yes from 100 percent likely to 99 percent.

That's obviously not true.

 

[Contumacious]

would you answer the question please

so if China was destabilizing the US you would run and seek refuge in china?

Firstly, the typical Syrian does not know that the US is up to no good

Secondly, it depends on the desperation level of the refugee

 

[Origanalist]

I don't see how we could not accept the responsibility to accept refugees who are fleeing the consequences of our meddling.

There you go with the "we and our"' don't include me please.

 

[Origanalist]

I am against all forms of the warfare/welfare state. No.

 

[puppetmaster]

Firstly, the typical Syrian does not know that the US is up to no good

Secondly, it depends on the desperation level of the refugee

ok keep avoiding the question.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That is exactly the attitude you ought to have. Adopt your own individual policy, and don't impose it on anyone else. If you want to keep yourself separate from some other people, you should be free to do so.

You should follow your own dictate, erowe. You have a right to your own liberty, until you stomp on someone else's. Your policy of admitting the refugees would impact a number of other Americans' liberty, so you are not free to do so. I would think a self-professed libertarian would know that.

 

[timosman]

You should follow your own dictate, erowe. You have a right to your own liberty, until you stomp on someone else's. Your policy of admitting the refugees would impact a number of other Americans' liberty, so you are not free to do so. I would think a self-professed libertarian would know that.

What erowe1 is saying: You can have your own "liberty" as long as you don't leave your house.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What erowe1 is saying: You can have your own "liberty" as long as you don't leave your house.

And even that is ignorant. Hard to have your own liberty in your house if a nuclear reactor is bombed, etc.

 

[Contumacious]

That is dumber than dirt, not to mention totally illogical.

Just because the boat will take on more water, doesn't mean you shouldn't bail.

Let's look at the warmonger's Orwellian definition of "logical"


You posted "The Origin of ISIS" which outlines how the US Government unconstitutionally, arbitrarily and whimsically destroyed the small country known as Syria - individuals, their families, employers , infrastructure, all destroyed.

But from the warmonger/interventionist standpoint there is NO LIABILITY, the US Government is NOT responsible for making these unfortunate people whole, the Syrians, according to you, are NOT entitled to compensation.

An according to you that is LOGICAL.

BULLSHIT, YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

.

 

[Dr.3D]

Sort of looks like Puerto Rico is the place to send those Syrian refugees.

 

[puppetmaster]

Let's look at the warmonger's Orwellian definition of "logical"


You posted "The Origin of ISIS" which outlines how the US Government unconstitutionally, arbitrarily and whimsically destroyed the small country known as Syria - individuals, their families, employers , infrastructure, all destroyed.

But from the warmonger/interventionist standpoint there is NO LIABILITY, the US Government is NOT responsible for making these unfortunate people whole, the Syrians, according to you, are NOT entitled to compensation.

An according to you that is LOGICAL.

BULLSHIT, YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

.

it is obvious you cannot answer serious questions without a tantrum. Let's try this again.....if China was invading Puerto Rico causing strife and chaos would you go to China in peace? Would you stay and defend your family?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Sorry, we're all over fullup now. Let the rest of the world do it's share.

 

[Cabal]

But from the warmonger/interventionist standpoint there is NO LIABILITY, the US Government is NOT responsible for making these unfortunate people whole, the Syrians, according to you, are NOT entitled to compensation.

The implication here being that a) the State is capable of "making anyone whole," let alone refugees the State, itself, has caused the displacement of, b) that the only way for them to "be made whole" is to bring them across the world to the U.S. and to thus burden the tax payers, many of whom were against involvement in the Middle East/Syria.

That about right?

Obviously there are many refugees who are in need of assistance. But why is bringing [some of] them to the U.S. the only solution?

Everything the State does costs money, and every dime the State spends is ultimately theft. How much theft does your conscience demand before it is satisfied?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Let's look at the warmonger's Orwellian definition of "logical"


You posted "The Origin of ISIS" which outlines how the US Government unconstitutionally, arbitrarily and whimsically destroyed the small country known as Syria - individuals, their families, employers , infrastructure, all destroyed.

But from the warmonger/interventionist standpoint there is NO LIABILITY, the US Government is NOT responsible for making these unfortunate people whole, the Syrians, according to you, are NOT entitled to compensation.

An according to you that is LOGICAL.

BULLSHIT, YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

.

You have a valid point-SOMEONE has to take responsibility for the mess. However, I would say the responsibility belongs to the actors directly at fault-the politicians. Let the refugees live in the White House, the Capitol building, the SCOTUS hall, and all the other federal territory in D.C. Also, the homes of the congress-critters, generals, and everyone else who created this mess.