• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

AWESOME! VERMONT MAYOR Defeated By Refugee Backlash

NIMBY said:
Bannon is micro-managing trump's empty political brain .
Click to expand...

And you know this because of the signals you are receiving through your tin foil hat.
 
Fletch said:
And you know this because of the signals you are receiving through your tin foil hat.
Click to expand...

A little early in the day for the tin foil hat smear, don't you think Fletch?

Are you defending comrade Leninist Bannon ?
 
code1211 said:
So, what are you saying?
Click to expand...

If you can't tell what I'm saying, why respond with so much blather?

There is suffering all over the world. Are you saying that the US is honor bound to eliminate suffering in all parts of the world for all people at all times for all reasons?
Click to expand...

That's the kind of hyperbole that children use to defend their misdeeds. Understand, there is a **** load of territory between eliminating ALL suffering and what the conservatives are proposing, which is that we turn our backs to it. Can you comprehend the difference?

Is there any limit at all on what we must give away to others in your quest to eliminate suffering?
Click to expand...

The limit is relative to our own fear and our self-serving greed. The irony here is that your ilk would spend a hundred billion tax dollars on bombs to kill Muslims, en mass, but you wouldn't devote a fraction of that to giving some of the most vulnerable of them shelter. No, you cravenly reduce the debate to a monetary one, despite the obvious existential weight of the issue.

So, the question is, how much of our human compassion must we suppress in order to give greedy conservative panty-wastes the warm, fuzzy feeling of security that only cultural isolationism can provide?

How about those imprisoned in China or Russia as political prisoners? Are we honor bound to invade and defeat the oppressive governments of the world to stop the suffering? How about Syria? there is plenty of suffering there. When do we invade?
Click to expand...

I see you are a well spring of ignorant equivocations. We don't have the power to address ALL forms of suffering in the world but where the opportunity to help is presented and DENIED, that is indicative of a pathological apathy. We aren't being asked to fix everything, only to do what we can.

Do you have a home? A warm place to live with electricity and modern convenience? Don't you feel selfish and self important that you are warm and dry while others are not? How many homeless live in your house or camp in your living room each night? How many poor do you feed daily? How many needy do you cloth?
Click to expand...

LOL. There's no hypocrisy in desiring comfort for myself AND others. I don't have to have hobos sleeping in my living room to call someone out for spitting on them. Nice try.

I wretch when I hear this overly pious tripe from people like you.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm an atheist, so the word "pious" doesn't apply. I do understand that moral decisions include some burden, though, and that's a **** load better than trying to insult people for being TOO moral. If you wretch, it's because you don't have the stomach, the guts, to look in the mirror and admit that you're advocating for cowardice. For all the military and religious bluster of the right, they are the most craven and hateful group of individuals imaginable. You disgust me.

If you are not living the life of St. Francis, you are a hypocrite. If you are living the life of St. Francis, you are finding that your feeble efforts are lost in the torrent of misery sweeping by you.
Click to expand...

Jesus, dude, what a load of crap. The choice in this world is not be perfect or shut up and tolerate all other imperfections. None of us are perfect, especially saints. What you are doing is saying that because you accept your own cruelty that I should do the same. I don't have to be Mr. Universe to see what a weakling you are.
 
D_NATURED said:
If you can't tell what I'm saying, why respond with so much blather?



That's the kind of hyperbole that children use to defend their misdeeds. Understand, there is a **** load of territory between eliminating ALL suffering and what the conservatives are proposing, which is that we turn our backs to it. Can you comprehend the difference?



The limit is relative to our own fear and our self-serving greed. The irony here is that your ilk would spend a hundred billion tax dollars on bombs to kill Muslims, en mass, but you wouldn't devote a fraction of that to giving some of the most vulnerable of them shelter. No, you cravenly reduce the debate to a monetary one, despite the obvious existential weight of the issue.

So, the question is, how much of our human compassion must we suppress in order to give greedy conservative panty-wastes the warm, fuzzy feeling of security that only cultural isolationism can provide?



I see you are a well spring of ignorant equivocations. We don't have the power to address ALL forms of suffering in the world but where the opportunity to help is presented and DENIED, that is indicative of a pathological apathy. We aren't being asked to fix everything, only to do what we can.



LOL. There's no hypocrisy in desiring comfort for myself AND others. I don't have to have hobos sleeping in my living room to call someone out for spitting on them. Nice try.



Well, I'm an atheist, so the word "pious" doesn't apply. I do understand that moral decisions include some burden, though, and that's a **** load better than trying to insult people for being TOO moral. If you wretch, it's because you don't have the stomach, the guts, to look in the mirror and admit that you're advocating for cowardice. For all the military and religious bluster of the right, they are the most craven and hateful group of individuals imaginable. You disgust me.



Jesus, dude, what a load of crap. The choice in this world is not be perfect or shut up and tolerate all other imperfections. None of us are perfect, especially saints. What you are doing is saying that because you accept your own cruelty that I should do the same. I don't have to be Mr. Universe to see what a weakling you are.
Click to expand...


As an atheist, you may not be familiar with the Corporal and Spiritual Acts of Mercy. If you are not familiar with these, then you may want to instruct yourself. It couldn't hurt you and will probably be a big help.

Accusing others of not giving enough and then not giving enough yourself is hypocritical. I didn't invent the word. I only know what it means. You should instruct yourself

You include me in a group you hate so you can hate me as well. This marks you as a bigot. Again, I didn't invent the word. I only know what it means. Again, you should instruct yourself.

You have no idea what the extent of my charitable giving, charitable works or community involvement might be. Still you accuse me of all manner of horrible stuff. I guess we're back that hate me because you put me into a group you hate thing again.

I don't have any grievance against those who need help and I do what I can. What irritates me about people like you is that you accuse others of not doing enough while you do little yourself.

Do what you can and then STFU. If you aren't specifically doing all of the things you demand that others do to ease your conscience, it's empty words you speak. That's why I asked what YOU are doing and you seem to have responded that you do virtually nothing.

Drop the talk and walk the walk.
 
code1211 said:
As an atheist, you may not be familiar with the Corporal and Spiritual Acts of Mercy. If you are not familiar with these, then you may want to instruct yourself. It couldn't hurt you and will probably be a big help.

Accusing others of not giving enough and then not giving enough yourself is hypocritical. I didn't invent the word. I only know what it means. You should instruct yourself

You include me in a group you hate so you can hate me as well. This marks you as a bigot. Again, I didn't invent the word. I only know what it means. Again, you should instruct yourself.

You have no idea what the extent of my charitable giving, charitable works or community involvement might be. Still you accuse me of all manner of horrible stuff. I guess we're back that hate me because you put me into a group you hate thing again.

I don't have any grievance against those who need help and I do what I can. What irritates me about people like you is that you accuse others of not doing enough while you do little yourself.

Do what you can and then STFU. If you aren't specifically doing all of the things you demand that others do to ease your conscience, it's empty words you speak. That's why I asked what YOU are doing and you seem to have responded that you do virtually nothing.

Drop the talk and walk the walk.
Click to expand...

You don't know my charitable deeds either. I didn't mention them because they aren't relevant. This debate is not about our individual charity, it's about our nation's foreign policy.

If we are so frightened of Muslims that we are willing to turn our backs to their desperate need, we have failed to rise to the moral challenge. If and when the next generation of Muslim children grow up to see how we've officially responded to their crisis, it will be easy to convince them that we are monsters. What kind of people allow innocent adults and children to be slaughtered rather than give them shelter?

Trump's policy, regardless of his followers' desperate attempts at justifying their apathy, is cruel and, above all, cowardly. Deal with it.
 
D_NATURED said:
You don't know my charitable deeds either. I didn't mention them because they aren't relevant. This debate is not about our individual charity, it's about our nation's foreign policy.

If we are so frightened of Muslims that we are willing to turn our backs to their desperate need, we have failed to rise to the moral challenge. If and when the next generation of Muslim children grow up to see how we've officially responded to their crisis, it will be easy to convince them that we are monsters. What kind of people allow innocent adults and children to be slaughtered rather than give them shelter?

Trump's policy, regardless of his followers' desperate attempts at justifying their apathy, is cruel and, above all, cowardly. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Well, a racist sees all things through the lens of race.

The travelers from 6 (?) countries in the world that don't currently have high functioning governments are affected.

Seen through the eyes of racists, this is a race-based policy. Seen through their eyes, ALL policies are race-based.

Seen from a point of rational analysis, anyone would have a different view.

Are India or Indonesia on the list?

World Muslim population more widespread than you might think | Pew Research Center
<snip>
Muslims make up a majority of the population in 49 countries around the world.

The country with the largest number (about 209 million) is Indonesia, where 87.2% of the population identifies as Muslim.

India has the world’s second-largest Muslim population in raw numbers (roughly 176 million), though Muslims make up just 14.4% of India’s total population.
<snip>

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/travel-ban-muslim-trump.html?_r=0
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I wasn't passing judgement on it. I'd be a hypocrite if I did. Just wondering which it is.
Click to expand...

Probably both. It is for me. I don't want refugees in my neighborhood. Don't want to pay $4,000+ of taxpayers money per year to keep them here.
 
Henrin said:
No. The people of the land get to decide who comes there.



Again, it doesn't matter why people decide to not let a group of people on their land. If the US people decided one day to only let Europeans to come here that would be their right to do.
Click to expand...

Didn't the people get to decide last November? The build a wall guy won. Now activist judges are deciding. They too can replaced. A little slower process, but doable.
 
D_NATURED said:
Refugees have always been looked down upon. I think there is an attitude that if their culture at "home" manifest as poverty, oppression and war, why would we want them here? Why open our door to people who would, on religious grounds, consider much of our culture sinful and corrupt, even as it feeds, educates and protects them?

The answer, of course, is that if we are moral beings, we should be willing to risk exposing our society to imported terrorists rather than live with the certainty of their suffering, otherwise. In this way, the fear mongering of the conservatives has an advantage over the perpetual high groud seeking of the left. For Americans, just like elsewhere, the philosophy of morals play second fiddle to existential realities. Where they don't, suicide vests are a fashion statement.

That's the scariest thing about our enemies, their moral sense, as crazy as it is, is not flexible, even in the face of death. For that reason, they will lose the conflict and, in the process, will turn us into something much uglier. They already have.
Click to expand...

Refugees used to be temporary. When things got back in order at home, they left the USA and went back. Now they stay and start hating on citizens because we don't "respect" their customs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom