Archive

Another Mass Shooting possibly terrorism

  • sherm03
    Automatik;1768430 wrote:What about the notion that the Donald's comments are counterproductive in regards to the Muslim nations/groups who are assisting the US?
    No way! No Mooslims are assisting the US! All Mooslims is bad and turrists and shouldn't be allowed in here!
    Heretic;1768437 wrote:I'm come to the conclusion that if it isn't a Republican talking point, Quaker is unable to comprehend it.

    "Tiny percentage of gun owners are psychos? No biggie!"

    "Tiny percentage of immigrants are psychos? BIGGEST DEAL THAT'S EVER BEEN DEALT!!!!"

    That's the annoying thing about politards; they all play the fear card to make their talking points seem more valid, while acting like the fear card is only being used by the other side. Far left people see a shooting and try to make it sound like any and all guns are bad and nothing good can ever come of regular people owning them. Far right people are currently acting like there's a bloodthirsty terrorist around every corner and we need to live in complete terror, closing our borders and essentially saying "YER KIND AIN'T WELCOME HAR" to any race or ethnicity we deem to potentially be a threat.

    Even though:

    1. The word "terror" is in terrorist for a reason and completely changing how we do things based on our fear of what they can do is essentially conceding that, yes, we're scurred and they've accomplished their mission. Or at least that phase of it.

    2. When anti-gun talk comes up, a big talking point is that just because you say law-abiding citizens can't have guns, that isn't going to stop criminals from obtaining them. I agree with that. If a criminal wants a gun, they aren't going to be deterred by laws saying they can't. I do find it hilarious that a lot of people saying that are incapable of grasping the VERY BASIC logic saying that just because you're barring people from entering a country, it doesn't mean that a potential terrorist won't be able to find a way to sneak in.
    That's my favorite part. I pointed it out around the time of the shooting at the school in Oregon. That week, people were going crazy about Planned Parenthood and abortions. And I literally saw politards flip their reasoning based on the topic at hand.

    Prior to the shooting, when everyone was talking about abortions:
    "You need to make abortions illegal to protect the sanctity of life!" - Conservatives
    "Banning abortions won't stop people from having them. It's a waste of time." - Liberals

    After the shooting:
    "You need to make guns illegal to protect the sanctity of life!" - Liberals
    "Banning guns won't stop people from having them. It's a waste of time." - Conservatives
  • FatHobbit
    sherm03;1768441 wrote:No way! No Mooslims are assisting the US! All Mooslims is bad and turrists and shouldn't be allowed in here!



    That's my favorite part. I pointed it out around the time of the shooting at the school in Oregon. That week, people were going crazy about Planned Parenthood and abortions. And I literally saw politards flip their reasoning based on the topic at hand.

    Prior to the shooting, when everyone was talking about abortions:
    "You need to make abortions illegal to protect the sanctity of life!" - Conservatives
    "Banning abortions won't stop people from having them. It's a waste of time." - Liberals

    After the shooting:
    "You need to make guns illegal to protect the sanctity of life!" - Liberals
    "Banning guns won't stop people from having them. It's a waste of time." - Conservatives
    One of my favorite memes is "After every act of terror we are told that all Muslims shouldn't be blamed for the acts of a few. Isn't it time that gun owners get the same treatment?" The people posting don't even seem to understand they are pointing out their own hypocrisy at the same time. It goes both ways. Either you blame everyone (Muslims and gun owners)for the acts of a few crazies or you don't.
  • queencitybuckeye
    FatHobbit;1768447 wrote:One of my favorite memes is "After every act of terror we are told that all Muslims shouldn't be blamed for the acts of a few. Isn't it time that gun owners get the same treatment?" The people posting don't even seem to understand they are pointing out their own hypocrisy at the same time. It goes both ways. Either you blame everyone (Muslims and gun owners)for the acts of a few crazies or you don't.
    It's like blaming all Christians for the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church. Or blaming all musicians for Justin Bieber. It's dumb in every context.
  • lhslep134
    queencitybuckeye;1768449 wrote:It's like blaming all Christians for the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church. Or blaming all musicians for Justin Bieber. It's dumb in every context.

    And it's not limited to one side or the other.

    Radical idiocy knows no party lines.
  • MontyBrunswick
    Belly35;1768419 wrote:So your mentality is, "when things get rough.... run away, run away"
    And yours is to create stupid, 6th grade-level writing prompts and post them on the chatter.

    At least I offered a viable solution to your "problem".
  • BR1986FB
    sherm03;1768386 wrote:Because Jimmy Carter never said that he wanted to block all Iranians from coming in, AND that if an Iranian-American left the country, he wanted to block them from coming back, too.
    Carter never said he wanted to block all Iranians from coming in? He may not have "said" it but he "did" it...

    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/489202-remember-back-when-jimmy-carter-forbade-immigration-from-iran-and-expelled-and-immigrants-from-iran-and-expelled/

    "any entry by Iranian citizens into the U.S. was stopped."

    I really don't know what the solution to the problem is because if you ban ALL Muslim's from entering, you're a "discriminatory racist." I realize that not all Muslim's are bad and it's a select group of them doing the damage. the problem is, ok....you don't ban them.....how are you supposed to know which ones are the good ones? Captain P#ssy in the Oval Office wants to let as many refugees in as possible. You think some of them aren't going to have some terrorist ties?
  • FatHobbit
    BR1986FB;1768474 wrote: I really don't know what the solution to the problem is because if you ban ALL Muslim's from entering, you're a "discriminatory racist." I realize that not all Muslim's are bad and it's a select group of them doing the damage. the problem is, ok....you don't ban them.....how are you supposed to know which ones are the good ones? Captain P#ssy in the Oval Office wants to let as many refugees in as possible. You think some of them aren't going to have some terrorist ties?
    So far,not one of the terror attacks has come from a refugee. It's not a fast process to get in. It would be much easier for them to go to Mexico or Canada and sneak across the border.
  • lhslep134
    FatHobbit;1768484 wrote:So far,not one of the terror attacks has come from a refugee. It's not a fast process to get in. It would be much easier for them to go to Mexico or Canada and sneak across the border.

    Inb4 Quaker and Belly equate Farook's Saudi wife to the Syrian refugees
  • sherm03
    BR1986FB;1768474 wrote:Carter never said he wanted to block all Iranians from coming in? He may not have "said" it but he "did" it...

    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/489202-remember-back-when-jimmy-carter-forbade-immigration-from-iran-and-expelled-and-immigrants-from-iran-and-expelled/

    "any entry by Iranian citizens into the U.S. was stopped."

    I really don't know what the solution to the problem is because if you ban ALL Muslim's from entering, you're a "discriminatory racist." I realize that not all Muslim's are bad and it's a select group of them doing the damage. the problem is, ok....you don't ban them.....how are you supposed to know which ones are the good ones? Captain P#ssy in the Oval Office wants to let as many refugees in as possible. You think some of them aren't going to have some terrorist ties?
    You missed the AND portion of my statement. Carter blocked Iranians. But he didn't block Iranians AND say that if Iranian-Americans left the country they wouldn't be allowed back in as well. Trump wants to block Muslims AND not let Muslim Americans back into the country if they leave.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Big difference between banning people from a country proudly holding American hostages, and banning a worldwide religion.
  • lhslep134
    queencitybuckeye;1768494 wrote:Big difference between banning people from a country we're at war with (declared or not), and banning a worldwide religion.
    Sure.

    But couldn't you take Carter's line of reasoning and stretch it out to use it as support for banning Syrian refugees now that Obama has called on Congress to declare war on ISIS, i.e. Syria?

    As a Jew I can never support turning away refugees persecuted in their own country for their religion, but logically speaking I can see how one could call for a ban on Syrian refugees based on the reasoning Jimmy Carter used to turn away Iranians, even if I don't agree.
  • superman
    70,000 cleics issue a fatwa against terrorism. http://m.timesofindia.com/india/70000-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-terrorism-15-lakh-Muslims-support-it/articleshow/50100656.cms
  • HitsRus
    Here's an interesting piece from Politico.

    http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/11/yes-we-should-consider-refugees-religion-000325
    ... It talks about why we should consider religion, and it is in fact immigration law. Very interesting take on why we should take refugees from Syria... But not necessarily the Muslim kind.... Not to be discriminatory against them but because Christian refugees need asylum even more. They are being persecuted and systemically exterminated in much the same way Jews were 75 years ago.

    The saddest thing is that of the nearly 10,000 refugees that we've accepted, almost none are Christian.
  • SizzlePig
    Heretic;1768437 wrote:I'm come to the conclusion that if it isn't a Republican talking point, Quaker is unable to comprehend it.

    "Tiny percentage of gun owners are psychos? No biggie!"

    "Tiny percentage of immigrants are psychos? BIGGEST DEAL THAT'S EVER BEEN DEALT!!!!"
    anything can be reversed depending on what side you are on. such as...

    "Tiny percentage of gun owners are psychos? BIGGEST DEAL THAT'S EVER BEEN DEALT!!!!"

    "Tiny percentage of immigrants are psychos? No biggie!"
  • HitsRus
    ^^^that's a good point.

    The difference, though, between "guns' (an inanimate object) and violent immigrants are motivations, intent, and the ability to act. Guns, by themselves have none of that....they require a user with violent intent. That's why it is incorrect to label this as a gun problem, when it really is a violence problem, whether it be foreign or domestic.
  • sherm03
    SizzlePig;1768610 wrote:anything can be reversed depending on what side you are on. such as...

    "Tiny percentage of gun owners are psychos? BIGGEST DEAL THAT'S EVER BEEN DEALT!!!!"

    "Tiny percentage of immigrants are psychos? No biggie!"
    Did you read the rest of the post that you quoted there? Heretic called out both sides for doing that dumb bullshit...as did several other people after that post.
  • Belly35
    MontyBrunswick;1768470 wrote:And yours is to create stupid, 6th grade-level writing prompts and post them on the chatter.

    At least I offered a viable solution to your "problem".
    The level of my writing and grammar skills is not the issue. Please send your complains to Walt Disney and Albert Einstein Department of Poor Writing and Grammar So Call Me Stupid.

    Could you please re-post that " viable solution" post?

    I thank you and all those who follow my threads and post ... the writing is poor but the message still seems to hit the mark.
  • Heretic
    sherm03;1768615 wrote:Did you read the rest of the post that you quoted there? Heretic called out both sides for doing that dumb bullshit...as did several other people after that post.
    That's the problem with doing crazy-ass things like "typing more than 4-5 sentences at once"... People read the opening lines and decide to hit up their favorite talking points without actually checking to see if they've already been made. Such is life.
  • SizzlePig
    sherm03;1768615 wrote:Did you read the rest of the post that you quoted there? Heretic called out both sides for doing that dumb bullshit...as did several other people after that post.
    not so much. guilty as charged.
  • SizzlePig
    Heretic;1768635 wrote:That's the problem with doing crazy-ass things like "typing more than 4-5 sentences at once"... People read the opening lines and decide to hit up their favorite talking points without actually checking to see if they've already been made. Such is life.
    yep, that's my fault. the first sentence made me think it was a rant about repubs.
  • MontyBrunswick
    Belly35;1768619 wrote: Could you please re-post that " viable solution" post?
    Sure no problem.

    http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?47361-Another-Mass-Shooting-possibly-terrorism&p=1768388&viewfull=1#post1768388
  • sherm03
    SizzlePig;1768686 wrote:not so much. guilty as charged.
    SizzlePig;1768687 wrote:yep, that's my fault. the first sentence made me think it was a rant about repubs.
    Huge amount of respect for you for posting these. Most people just double down and dig in further. Refreshing to see someone say, yep...my bad. I wish more people would do that instead of acting like they...or their side...never make a mistake.
  • lhslep134
    sherm03;1768705 wrote:Huge amount of respect for you for posting these. Most people just double down and dig in further. Refreshing to see someone say, yep...my bad. I wish more people would do that instead of acting like they...or their side...never make a mistake.
    Reps for the subtext that the intended won't receive.
  • QuakerOats
    Funny
  • Spock
    BR1986FB;1768380 wrote:You mean like the pinko liberal Jimmy Carter did to the Iranians back in the day?
    This