• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP Governors Squat to Pee: Syrian Immigrant Panic

Make them prove they are Christian Syrians or they don't get in. Set up TSA dunking chairs at all ports of entry to make the Syrian refugees tell the truth.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) has sponsored a bill that would defund the resettlement program, which he calls “insane,” and suggested limiting refugees to Christians only.

He appeared Tuesday on a conservative SiriusXM program hosted by Stephen Bannon of Breitbart News, where the GOP lawmaker slapped back at his “haters.”

“What they’re going to bring up over the holiday season is, ‘Mary and Joseph were refugees, Mary and Joseph when they went into Egypt were refugees,’” Bannon said.

The lawmaker waved away those comparisons as inapt.

“Mary and Jesus didn’t have suicide bomb vests strapped on them, and these folks do,” Babin said. “You can see it in technicolor in Paris.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
oI2DiZe.png
 
Risky Thicket said:
One hell of a lot of GOP Governors bum rushed Washington in a fit of wide eyed panic yesterday after it was reported that one of the Paris attackers might have been a Syrian. "Shut the doors", "Keep them out", "Protect us," "Make it stop", "I need to poopie", "Can I sleep with the light on?" "We don't want to die" GOP governors were quoted as saying as they petitioned the White House not to send Syrians to their respective states.

Meantime back in the real world Americans are much more likely to be harmed in terrorist attacks by homegrown right wing nutters than by Muslims. Of course many Americans don't know that. American "news" channels have not told them it is so. American "news" channels have told Americans to be vewy, vewy, afwaid of Syrians.":scared:'"


All because French investigators found a Syrian passport that may or may not be fake.


"It's the Syrians! MOTHER OF GOD, HELP US. CLOSE THE DOOR, LOCK UP THE LIQUOR, HIDE THE WOMEN. AHHHHHHH, SYRIANS."


Man, those tough talking Republican governors are real life nancys. I bet everyone of them sits down to pee. :roll:


So how about greater threats to our American way of life, like American right wing terrorists?


Let's look at Texas, as an example. I'd use my home state of Georgia or I'd use Arizona. There are plenty of feces brained extremists in both states, but frankly Texas seems to be more organized when it comes to American terrorist groups. How about the Texas based Army of God?





These American religious extremists have terrorized people in a number of states across America. They have targeted and killed people. How can we stop them? How can we stop them from terrorizing Americans? Using the squat to pee governors' Syrian panic example I propose that No State in the U.S. permit people from Texas within their borders. None.

How can we be sure a Texan isn't an Army of God member? How do we know a Texan isn't an Army of God supporter? We don't know! "Ahhhhhhh, panic. Run away, run away."


Why aren't we hearing mass outrage from Texans about their homegrown terrorists? Where are the public protests in Texas denouncing the Army of God? We hear nothing. It is obvious that most Texans are members or supporters of the Army of God.


The best way to handle this credible threat is to ship all Texans back to Texas and deny them the opportunity to travel to other states. Following that we should build a wall around Texas and make them pay for it.


God Bless America and Feck Texas
Click to expand...


It's not an either-or. BOTH groups are a threat.

It is entirely rational to question allowing in refugees from an area that promotes, and acts on, an anti-west sentiment and violence through terrorism. Not to regard that with trepidation is not to have a brain. The Bostom bombers are two examples.

We are stuck with the rightwing nutters who blow off children's faces, while the NRA waves its gun flag. They are unfortunately citizens. But that doesn't mean we should invite in non-citizens who come from an anti-western area that promotes the killing and suicide bombing of Americans. We are not stuck with them....yet.
 
Squat to pee?
 
Threegoofs said:
oI2DiZe.png
Click to expand...

How clever. And dishonest. Are you guys even capable of honest discussion of anything? It seems not. But go ahead and demonstrate that these ten thousand Syrians are all children. Or orphans as the liar-in-chief referred to them. Here is a little tip for you to use in future posts--if you have to lie to make your point, maybe you ought to rethink your position. Give it a shot next time. You already blew it here.
 
Fletch said:
How clever. And dishonest. Are you guys even capable of honest discussion of anything? It seems not. But go ahead and demonstrate that these ten thousand Syrians are all children. Or orphans as the liar-in-chief referred to them. Here is a little tip for you to use in future posts--if you have to lie to make your point, maybe you ought to rethink your position. Give it a shot next time. You already blew it here.
Click to expand...

No where does it say 'all children'.
 
Fletch said:
How clever. And dishonest. Are you guys even capable of honest discussion of anything? It seems not. But go ahead and demonstrate that these ten thousand Syrians are all children. Or orphans as the liar-in-chief referred to them. Here is a little tip for you to use in future posts--if you have to lie to make your point, maybe you ought to rethink your position. Give it a shot next time. You already blew it here.
Click to expand...

Really? Your standard for this is that they must be 100% comprised of children? What if it's only 99%?
 
Deuce said:
Really? Your standard for this is that they must be 100% comprised of children? What if it's only 99%?
Click to expand...

Is that what it is Deuce? 99%? You really want trash your credibility on this issue?
 
Alyssa T. said:
Does the administration always pick the bombing targets? Or is that on some guys in the pentagon? Just asking. I don't know who picks those things.
Click to expand...

The head of the administration and the Pentagon are one and the same. In general, the orders come from above. There are semi confirmed rumors, and I stress rumors, although the administration didn't deny, that the criteria from above was that no collateral damage was to occur, that all bomb drops were to be approved above pilot level, and that a high percentage (80%?) of the field requests were denied.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
It is NOT common sense to shut down dissent. It is perfectly reasonable that a large segment of the American people would have serious reservations about taking in thousands of Syrians and allowing them to be situated throughout America's heartland.

Instead of our President saying, "Look, here's what we're doing to assure that we are taking in deserving people, we are doing x and y and z, he's busy ridiculing those who are concerned. Childish.

It s NOT ridiculous to be concerned. It is ridiculous to ridicule THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

Although I haven't seen it mentioned, in this case we also have the advantage of recent hind sight.

A couple of years ago the same type of immediate refugee situation occurred. That was the kids crossing the southern border. Same immediacy, same we got it under control promise. The result? The kids were released into the general population, and less than 10% showed up for their hearing. Today we have no idea where they are.
 
As I have pointed out before on here, to come here as a refugee you have to be screened by 5 different federal agencies and after all that, you must then face an in person interview. This is why of 710,000 or so refugees we have accepted since 2001, only 3 have later been involved in any terrorist plots. If you are a terrorist that wants to come to the United States, then the refugee program is by far the hardest way you could possibly try to come here.

As to the comparisons with Germany, our system doesn't work like theirs does. It is exponentially harder to come to the United States as a refugee than it is to come to Germany as one.
 
Fletch said:
Is that what it is Deuce? 99%? You really want trash your credibility on this issue?
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension is worse than that of a goldfish. Either that, or you are being deliberately dishonest. Those are the only two options. Tell me which one it is.
 
Deuce said:
Your reading comprehension is worse than that of a goldfish. Either that, or you are being deliberately dishonest. Those are the only two options. Tell me which one it is.
Click to expand...

If I am misunderstanding you, then by all means clear things up.
 
Fletch said:
If I am misunderstanding you, then by all means clear things up.
Click to expand...

At no point did I suggest 99% of them were children, but somehow you interpreted the post as me saying that. The phrase "what if" directly implies "it's not but let's talk about the scenario"

If you need any more English lessons, let me know.
 
Deuce said:
At no point did I suggest 99% of them were children, but somehow you interpreted the post as me saying that. The phrase "what if" directly implies "it's not but let's talk about the scenario"

If you need any more English lessons, let me know.
Click to expand...
So much anger Deuce, so little light. Do you have a point in there anywhere? And how does this point of yours relate to mine or the discussion I was having?
 
Fletch said:
So much anger Deuce, so little light. Do you have a point in there anywhere? And how does this point of yours relate to mine or the discussion I was having?
Click to expand...

The bottom line is you responded to my photo saying it was 'dishonest' because ALL the refugees were not children.

That in itself is a dishonest (or more accurately, idiotic) argument.

The point being that some are so scared of ISIS that they are refusing to help the refugees, which are composed mostly of women and children.
 
Threegoofs said:
The bottom line is you responded to my photo saying it was 'dishonest' because ALL the refugees were not children.

That in itself is a dishonest (or more accurately, idiotic) argument.

The point being that some are so scared of ISIS that they are refusing to help the refugees, which are composed mostly of women and children.
Click to expand...
Ah youre back. What was the point or message your little picture was trying to get across? And do try to be honest.
 
Fletch said:
Ah youre back. What was the point or message your little picture was trying to get across? And do try to be honest.
Click to expand...

You really can't understand English, can you?

Pro tip: when you are looking to find the main thesis, or point (you may also call it 'message') of a post, it often immediately follows after the poster types the initial phrase "The point is..".
 
Threegoofs said:
You really can't understand English, can you?

Pro tip: when you are looking to find the main thesis, or point (you may also call it 'message') of a post, it often immediately follows after the poster types the initial phrase "The point is..".
Click to expand...

Except the post in question was a picture that you didn't add any commentary or 'message' to at the end. So this is just another dishonest post from you. What a shocker. Lets test your ability to understand English, shall we?

"The point is..." Obama first and now you are lying about the opposition to the immigration of Syrians. He knows it, and you know it. Its not about orphans as he falsely claimed and its not about children as you falsely and dutifully claimed. And here is a follow on point for you to try and grasp--when you spread lies, they destroy your credibility. So when you go to an issue that is truly dear to you, like AGW, why in the hell should I believe anything you say? If you are willing to lie about this unimportant issue to get your way, you will surely lie about one that is important to you. Dishonesty has a price, and in your case that price is your credibility.
 
Fletch said:
So much anger Deuce, so little light. Do you have a point in there anywhere? And how does this point of yours relate to mine or the discussion I was having?
Click to expand...

I already told you the point. You're hilariously "misunderstanding" my posts. I corrected you. Any more questions?

As for anger, that sounds a bit like projection to me. I'm amused by you, not angered.
 
Fletch said:
Except the post in question was a picture that you didn't add any commentary or 'message' to at the end. So this is just another dishonest post from you. What a shocker. Lets test your ability to understand English, shall we?

"The point is..." Obama first and now you are lying about the opposition to the immigration of Syrians. He knows it, and you know it. Its not about orphans as he falsely claimed and its not about children as you falsely and dutifully claimed. And here is a follow on point for you to try and grasp--when you spread lies, they destroy your credibility. So when you go to an issue that is truly dear to you, like AGW, why in the hell should I believe anything you say? If you are willing to lie about this unimportant issue to get your way, you will surely lie about one that is important to you. Dishonesty has a price, and in your case that price is your credibility.
Click to expand...

LOL.

You're making little sense.

That's often the case with irrational xenophobes.

Since you seem to only understand arguments in terms of absolutes...are you saying there are NO orphans or children?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom