Extreme Vetting

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

The solution most certainly is not reducing the vetting time by 80%. In what world would anyone consider that a reasonable course of action? When one of those commits an act of terroism killing thousands will those that support reducing vetting time by 80% man up and admit to their catastrophic mistake? Most likely they will shrink into the shadows or worse yet blame those who are tasked with finding the proverbial needle in the haystack in 80% less time. I have no probelm with LEGAL immigration and have stated so numerous times down here but I am certainly for seriously vetting of those coming from parts of the world where terrorisim is an everyday occurrence. To your point . The number and magnitude of attacks today far far exceeds those of the groups that you cite. Failing to accept that and yearning for days long gone is dangeous and grossly irresponsible.

Actually, you are the one yearning for days gone by when immigration was far stricter than now...when anyone born here of asian parents were barred citizenship for example.

[Pants II]

It is an issue that should've been addressed 30 years ago. It's already too late.

In 20 years the rich will be spending more money to get away from the masses.

The rest of us will suffer for their stupidity.

After all it's the rich who decide everything.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Actually, you are the one yearning for days gone by when immigration was far stricter than now...when anyone born here of asian parents were barred citizenship for example.

No I am yearning for the days when decisions were based on statistical analysis and probability of something happening and not by stupid ****ing politically correct sheep not wanting to hurt someones feelings. What logic would dictate that immigration be made easier in a world where terrorisim has now spread to Europe via infiltrated immigrants from the very refugees you wish to reduce vetting time on.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

No I am yearning for the days when decisions were based on statistical analysis and probability of something happening and not by stupid ****ing politically correct sheep not wanting to hurt someones feelings.

Thats not how it was.
its funny you say statistical analysis while ignoring that we are safer now than ever...and that includes brown people coming here.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Thats not how it was.
its funny you say statistical analysis while ignoring that we are safer now than ever...and that includes brown people coming here.

Awesome and well reasoned point

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Awesome and well reasoned point

And what of the rest? Just ignore it?

A certain segment of society here has always wanted to change the rules when a new group started showing up. Catholics, chinese, irish, jews...we had a number set for people from germany...til it was their jews coming here. Fear has always caused some to preach isolationism and closing the borders to 'those people'. Yet, those scared ones like to say theyre the realists.

One other thing....you went off on me for using that emogee once in a response to you, because i was not getting something you said. Am i supposed to come unglued now?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

And what of the rest? Just ignore it?

A certain segment of society here has always wanted to change the rules when a new group started showing up. Catholics, chinese, irish, jews...we had a number set for people from germany...til it was their jews coming here. Fear has always caused some to preach isolationism and closing the borders to 'those people'. Yet, those scared ones like to say theyre the realists.

One other thing....you went off on me for using that emogee once in a response to you, because i was not getting something you said. Am i supposed to come unglued now?

Let me put it in list format for you since you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you are incapable with understanding things presented in paragraph form.

1. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH LEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM ANY PART OF THE WORLD!!

2. I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH REDUCING THE VETTING TIME BY 80% FOR REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN INFILTRATED BY ISIS AND THOSE INFILTRATORS HAVE ALREADY SLAUGHTERD SCORES IN FRANCE AND GERMANY.

One extrapolating the above into me being an isolationist is either a complete moron or a troll. OR Both

Oh and when you say absurd stuff like we are safer than we ever have been after 2 terroist attacks this year you will get the you deserve cause you earned it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Let me put it in list format for you since you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you are incapable with understanding things presented in paragraph form.

1. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH LEGAL IMMIGRATION FROM ANY PART OF THE WORLD!!

2. I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH REDUCING THE VETTING TIME BY 80% FOR REFUGEES THAT HAVE BEEN INFILTRATED BY ISIS AND THOSE INFILTRATORS HAVE ALREADY SLAUGHTERD SCORES IN FRANCE AND GERMANY.

One extrapolating the above into me being an isolationist is either a complete moron or a troll. OR Both

Oh and when you say absurd stuff like we are safer than we ever have been after 2 terroist attacks this year you will get the you deserve cause you earned it.

You cannot say it is absurd when it is true, and then say you want decisions based on facts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...afraid/384965/

And how do Americans celebrate this extraordinary success? By denying it. Every year Gallup asks whether crime has gone up or down since the previous year. Every year, rain or shine, the public insists, usually by overwhelming margins (63 percent to 21 percent in 2014), that crime has risen. “Most Americans Unaware of Big Crime Drop Since 1990s,” announced the Pew Research Center in 2013; only 10 percent of those surveyed knew that gun crimes had gone down since the 1990s. Criminologists say that many people get angry when told that crime is decreasing.

Perception is even more skewed where terrorism is concerned. “Terror-ism Worries Largely Unchanged,” ran another Pew headline, also in 2013. That year, 58 percent of the public was worried about another terrorist attack in the United States, a rate not all that much lower in October 2001, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, when 71 percent of the public was worried. A few months ago, perhaps influenced by isis’s atrocities, a large plurality of respondents told NBC News/Wall Street Journal pollsters that the country is less safe than it was before 9/11
Reality, once again, tells us otherwise. State-sponsored international terrorism, writes the intelligence analyst Paul R. Pillar in Cato’s A Dangerous World?, “is today only a shadow of what it was in the 1970s and 1980s.” As for the risk posed by terrorism inside the United States, to characterize it as trivial would be very generous. Americans are about four times as likely to drown in their bathtub as they are to die in a terrorist attack. John Mueller of Ohio State University and Mark G. Stewart of Australia’s University of Newcastle estimate the odds of such deaths at one in 950,000 and one in 3.5 million, respectively.

Facts and stats. What you claim you want.

As for refugees, you have railed against them from day one. You post a link thst distorts the facts in the original story, and think it tells the true story. No, it just fits your story. And then you have the nerve to say i am stupid or a troll. Amazing. You dont like what i post, so you once again stoop to name calling. Cannot argue the post, so attack the poster. Typical.

[Pants II]

If you really wanted to delve into crime statistics you would find that the narrative we're having less crime is a joke in itself. A lie so big that you would have to suffer from head lodged up arse for the span of a decade, if not more.

[Pants II]

Just look up crime stats from the early 60's and compare them today. Then look up the amount of crime by race.

Then laugh at the liberal comments.