Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

[Papageorgio]

There were PEW POLLS cited in the links to "muslim attitudes" --- did you or Politifact Miss those?

Politifact has no credibility on ANY "partisan" issues...

I was referring to a SPECIFIC poll on American Muslim attitudes - the poll by CPS that he linked to in his post. Did you miss that?

Politifact is not the only source that discredited CPS' methodology and it linked to some of those sources. Did you read it or automatically discard it because you feel it "has no credibility"?

Sorry Coyote, after I got into the poll a little more I found a lot of misleading questions.

I found it alarming last night and didn't look into it until recently.

The CPS poll?

I think that is the one, it's the one I linked earlier and it has a lot of flaws for a comprehensive poll.

That's the one who's methodology was severely questioned. I try to use Pew because they're considered non-partisan, and sound. I may not always like what I read, but I trust it.

I usually stay away from polls because they can be shakey. Live and learn.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you can't back up your own assertion because you didn't read your own link.

I did. Want me to tell everybody?

******* "Milo News" should have been your first screaming-from-the-rooftops clue.

Tell everybody, I don't give a shit what you post it is a free duck game country. If you want to tell everybody but on the national news tonight! Like I said you are only here for my entertainment.

And what are your bullshit links that you don't bother to vet "here for"? Because it sure ain't accuracy.

OK, by special request, directly from the Jeremy Christian thread post 1151, here's the real story behind the bullshit headline:

From the cited poll, Question 37, page 323:

"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)

The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)

Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.

The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.

In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three. Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.

That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.

So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?

Again that was asserted here:

"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
and here:

I am concerned that two thirds of British Muslims would not alert the authorities to a terrorist plot. That is a high and disturbing number.
Where does that finding appear in this poll?

NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.

A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!

Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.

Always vet your source. ******* "Milo News" REALLY?

Already read it in another thread but if you need your thread count to go up, go for it. You are a real laugher for me.

None of this is about "laughter". None of this is about "thread count" whatever that is (I thought it was something you look at buying bedsheets).

No Grasshopper this is about basic honesty. You (and others) trotted in an assertion that was nothing more than click bait. In your case you had the actual study in hand, posted it in at least two threads, and never bothered to vet your own source --- because confirmation bias. You liked what the click-bait headline said and swallowed whole, never stopping to ask first "wait --- is this true"?

That's just sloppy work. If this was a newspaper and you were the reporter you'd be at the unemployment office tomorrow morning. Don't be so damned gullible.

I'm not a reporter, never claimed to be a reporter, I don't care what your critique is. I have a real job and don't hang out on this site. If you don't like my post ignore them, I usually ignore yours. So, boohoo, keep crying and I will keep laughing at you.

I don't take you or this site seriously, it is all about fun for me.

 

[flacaltenn]

You had only to ask. Here ya go. Sorry it's like 5800 quotes, you'll just have to sift through to find the "American" ones if that's what floats yer boat.

I must say this Ignorami idea of "if I never heard of it -- it doesn't exist" is almost as amusing as this childlike naïveté that insists on pretending that mass media is going to spend time on this sort of thing that makes them no money fro the unwashed looking only to be appeased by stories of mayhem, horror and disaster.

Happy reading. Don't forget your blindfold.

I dont read a ******* thing you quote. You're just another appeaser and I have no use for any of you

Of course you don't. That's how you can stay ignorant and plop turds like "When I see American Muslims stand....". Whelp ---- you can't see it if you don't read it, so don't you dare click it..

Apparently she also doesn't like to recognize the Muslim American military members who have died for our country. Another fake-patriot who really doesn't support the troops.

3rd generation American Muslims do not have a cultural disconnect between their religion and living in America. MOST of the 1st and 2nd gen immigrants ALSO do not have an issue with American freedoms and values.

But REFUGEES from war zones that just want to go SOMEWHERE to survive -- don't necessarily even WANT TO BE American or British or Australian. We're talking about THOSE people. NOT the few who end up in Arlington Cemetery.

A lot of people here are talking about all Muslims. They aren't making a distinction. And it's not necessarily fair to label all refugees in the same category. Many are also very grateful....I realize there is a difference in outlook but it may not translate into serious issues.

Yeah -- and I'd support YOU if you stuck to that distinction. I'd jump foxholes and JOIN YOU if you were ONLY making the point that Islam can thrive in Western countries if they are culturally assimilated and fear the threat from radicalized Muslims as much as the West now does.

But you prefer to be a Pinata filled with factoids trying to defend ALL of ISLAM -- including the MAJORITY that only knows dictatorial theocracies with UGLY repressive laws and customs. And in your zeal to do that -- you drag EVERYTHING Christian, Jewish or Nazified into the mix.

I missed the part where the apologists for Dylan Roof came out and USED Radical Muslim Terrorists to MINIMIZE the awful deed that he committed. Has no bearing on THIS issue. Also just get the strange suicidal bent you have for MINIMIZING the security threats that we're now seeing.

You use Politifact like they are an objective fountain of LEGAL truth on matters. FACTS don't matter. Because facts are plentiful and full of contention when ASSERTED as a proof of anything. I've seen fact-checkers (maybe PolitiFact, maybe another ) actually use your method to minimize the danger of terrorism. I remember it well, because it was obscenely naive. And that was they REFUTED some claim about the danger of terrorist attacks by comparing the "death rate" to lightning. Could be a chuckle, but it was a "fact" of sorts. But a stupid one to use in winning an argument. Because LIGHTNING is NOT illegal, immoral, or an UNAVOIDABLE risk. And any "fact-checker" THAT DESPERATE to declare something phony -- needs to have their "fact-checking licence revoked"... You need to PROVE assertions. Facts are USED for that. But they in themselves are subject to qualification, BIASED SELECTION, and misuse.

The kamikaze pinata thing is only gonna change hearts and minds if you first acknowledge the FEARS and the PROBLEMS. I suggest you look at the monumental cataclysmic results of taking a culturally ISOLATED and carefree SMALL Swedish island with ONE cop and ONE murder in the last 200 years and having the Federal Govt there PLOP DOWN a 2500 person Muslim Refugee Center in town. And have the BALLS to tell the folks on that island to "Deal with It" and STFU...

THEN -- MAYBE -- you'll understand the baseball bats and incoming ordinance being lobbed at you..

 

[Mac1958]

I usually stay away from polls because they can be shakey. Live and learn.

But you're supposed to quote polls you like and attack those you don't!

Don't you know the RULES?

Get your SHIT TOGETHER, pal.
.

 

[Pogo]

I missed the part where the apologists for Dylan Roof came out and USED Radical Muslim Terrorists to MINIMIZE the awful deed that he committed.

I didn't follow that closely but check out the Jeremy Christian thread if you want to see that dynamic in action.

Murdererpologists crawling around there like cockaroaches.

 

[Pogo]

Tell everybody, I don't give a shit what you post it is a free duck game country. If you want to tell everybody but on the national news tonight! Like I said you are only here for my entertainment.

And what are your bullshit links that you don't bother to vet "here for"? Because it sure ain't accuracy.

OK, by special request, directly from the Jeremy Christian thread post 1151, here's the real story behind the bullshit headline:

From the cited poll, Question 37, page 323:

"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)

The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)

Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.

The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.

In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three. Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.

That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.

So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?

Again that was asserted here:

"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
and here:

I am concerned that two thirds of British Muslims would not alert the authorities to a terrorist plot. That is a high and disturbing number.
Where does that finding appear in this poll?

NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.

A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!

Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.

Always vet your source. ******* "Milo News" REALLY?

Already read it in another thread but if you need your thread count to go up, go for it. You are a real laugher for me.

None of this is about "laughter". None of this is about "thread count" whatever that is (I thought it was something you look at buying bedsheets).

No Grasshopper this is about basic honesty. You (and others) trotted in an assertion that was nothing more than click bait. In your case you had the actual study in hand, posted it in at least two threads, and never bothered to vet your own source --- because confirmation bias. You liked what the click-bait headline said and swallowed whole, never stopping to ask first "wait --- is this true"?

That's just sloppy work. If this was a newspaper and you were the reporter you'd be at the unemployment office tomorrow morning. Don't be so damned gullible.

I'm not a reporter, never claimed to be a reporter, I don't care what your critique is. I have a real job and don't hang out on this site. If you don't like my post ignore them, I usually ignore yours. So, boohoo, keep crying and I will keep laughing at you.

I don't take you or this site seriously, it is all about fun for me.

In a very real sense you DO "claim to be a reporter" when you trot in an assertion that looks real, but isn't.

That's spreading disinformation. It ain't "entertainment". Go get your own shit straight before you fling it.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Here's the latest information from the very ethical truth telling news source "The Gateway Pundit'

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/msnbc-host-questions-unarmed-london-police-overreacted-much-force-video/

 

[Papageorgio]

And what are your bullshit links that you don't bother to vet "here for"? Because it sure ain't accuracy.

OK, by special request, directly from the Jeremy Christian thread post 1151, here's the real story behind the bullshit headline:

From the cited poll, Question 37, page 323:

"If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you:" (followed by choices of what they would do in that case)

The 'winner' in that question was "Talk directly to that person about it to dissuade them" (46%)

Next was "Look for help" at 37%. "Help" was defined in the poll as talking to one's own family, talking to the recruit's family, consulting an imam, and community organisations.

The only other avenue offered to counter the person being recruited was "Report it to the police" at 34%. "I would not get involved" was chosen by less than ten percent.

In other words of the three avenues listed to stop the recruit from getting involved in terrorism (specifically in Syria), "report it to the police" was deemed the least directly effective of the three. Personal contact was deemed more effective, followed by guidance from community groups, families and religious clerics. ALL of them are methods of dissuading the recruit from that course, the only difference being which avenue would be most effective. And you'll notice that 46 + 37 + 34 add up to 117%, meaning many would follow more than one of those courses simultaneously. All for the same purpose of arresting the recruitment of this hypothetical person to terrorism.

That's it --- they say personal action would be more effective than the indirect "reporting it to the police". Ask any Second Amendment person on this site about a similar situation versus "report it to the police" and watch a similar result.

So where is the negatively-phrased question that says the respondent "would not" report it to the police?

Again that was asserted here:

"Astonishing" two in three British Muslims would NOT give police terror tip-offs
and here:

I am concerned that two thirds of British Muslims would not alert the authorities to a terrorist plot. That is a high and disturbing number.
Where does that finding appear in this poll?

NOWHERE. That question does not exist. Nowhere does it ask what the respondent would NOT do. That's why they can't answer my pointed question --- they didn't even bother to read their own source material.

A "high and disturbing number"? Sure it is. Because it's FAKE. That's the whole idea ----- to get the gullibles to swallow a headline. WHEN is it ever going to sink in to you Gullibles that these bullshit headlines are written to play y'all like a three-dollar banjo? A "high and disturbing number" is exactly what's going to sell papers. DUH!

Moreover to add insult to gullibility, the question was never about a "terrorist plot" nor did it refer to "tip offs" about such a plot in the UK. It says, specifically "in Syria". And nowhere does it ask the exclusionary.

Always vet your source. ******* "Milo News" REALLY?

Already read it in another thread but if you need your thread count to go up, go for it. You are a real laugher for me.

None of this is about "laughter". None of this is about "thread count" whatever that is (I thought it was something you look at buying bedsheets).

No Grasshopper this is about basic honesty. You (and others) trotted in an assertion that was nothing more than click bait. In your case you had the actual study in hand, posted it in at least two threads, and never bothered to vet your own source --- because confirmation bias. You liked what the click-bait headline said and swallowed whole, never stopping to ask first "wait --- is this true"?

That's just sloppy work. If this was a newspaper and you were the reporter you'd be at the unemployment office tomorrow morning. Don't be so damned gullible.

I'm not a reporter, never claimed to be a reporter, I don't care what your critique is. I have a real job and don't hang out on this site. If you don't like my post ignore them, I usually ignore yours. So, boohoo, keep crying and I will keep laughing at you.

I don't take you or this site seriously, it is all about fun for me.

In a very real sense you DO "claim to be a reporter" when you trot in an assertion that looks real, but isn't.

That's spreading disinformation. It ain't "entertainment". Go get your own shit straight before you fling it.

Sue me, I can post what I want, if you don't like it, cry...oh wait that is what you are already doing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I dont read a ******* thing you quote. You're just another appeaser and I have no use for any of you

Of course you don't. That's how you can stay ignorant and plop turds like "When I see American Muslims stand....". Whelp ---- you can't see it if you don't read it, so don't you dare click it..

Apparently she also doesn't like to recognize the Muslim American military members who have died for our country. Another fake-patriot who really doesn't support the troops.

3rd generation American Muslims do not have a cultural disconnect between their religion and living in America. MOST of the 1st and 2nd gen immigrants ALSO do not have an issue with American freedoms and values.

But REFUGEES from war zones that just want to go SOMEWHERE to survive -- don't necessarily even WANT TO BE American or British or Australian. We're talking about THOSE people. NOT the few who end up in Arlington Cemetery.

A lot of people here are talking about all Muslims. They aren't making a distinction. And it's not necessarily fair to label all refugees in the same category. Many are also very grateful....I realize there is a difference in outlook but it may not translate into serious issues.

Yeah -- and I'd support YOU if you stuck to that distinction. I'd jump foxholes and JOIN YOU if you were ONLY making the point that Islam can thrive in Western countries if they are culturally assimilated and fear the threat from radicalized Muslims as much as the West now does.

But you prefer to be a Pinata filled with factoids trying to defend ALL of ISLAM -- including the MAJORITY that only knows dictatorial theocracies with UGLY repressive laws and customs. And in your zeal to do that -- you drag EVERYTHING Christian, Jewish or Nazified into the mix.

I missed the part where the apologists for Dylan Roof came out and USED Radical Muslim Terrorists to MINIMIZE the awful deed that he committed. Has no bearing on THIS issue. Also just get the strange suicidal bent you have for MINIMIZING the security threats that we're now seeing.

You use Politifact like they are an objective fountain of LEGAL truth on matters. FACTS don't matter. Because facts are plentiful and full of contention when ASSERTED as a proof of anything. I've seen fact-checkers (maybe PolitiFact, maybe another ) actually use your method to minimize the danger of terrorism. I remember it well, because it was obscenely naive. And that was they REFUTED some claim about the danger of terrorist attacks by comparing the "death rate" to lightning. Could be a chuckle, but it was a "fact" of sorts. But a stupid one to use in winning an argument. Because LIGHTNING is NOT illegal, immoral, or an UNAVOIDABLE risk. And any "fact-checker" THAT DESPERATE to declare something phony -- needs to have their "fact-checking licence revoked"... You need to PROVE assertions. Facts are USED for that. But they in themselves are subject to qualification, BIASED SELECTION, and misuse.

The kamikaze pinata thing is only gonna change hearts and minds if you first acknowledge the FEARS and the PROBLEMS. I suggest you look at the monumental cataclysmic results of taking a culturally ISOLATED and carefree SMALL Swedish island with ONE cop and ONE murder in the last 200 years and having the Federal Govt there PLOP DOWN a 2500 person Muslim Refugee Center in town. And have the BALLS to tell the folks on that island to "Deal with It" and STFU...

THEN -- MAYBE -- you'll understand the baseball bats and incoming ordinance being lobbed at you..

Which doctor performed your backbone implant?

It looks to have taken quite well.

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course you don't. That's how you can stay ignorant and plop turds like "When I see American Muslims stand....". Whelp ---- you can't see it if you don't read it, so don't you dare click it..

Apparently she also doesn't like to recognize the Muslim American military members who have died for our country. Another fake-patriot who really doesn't support the troops.

3rd generation American Muslims do not have a cultural disconnect between their religion and living in America. MOST of the 1st and 2nd gen immigrants ALSO do not have an issue with American freedoms and values.

But REFUGEES from war zones that just want to go SOMEWHERE to survive -- don't necessarily even WANT TO BE American or British or Australian. We're talking about THOSE people. NOT the few who end up in Arlington Cemetery.

A lot of people here are talking about all Muslims. They aren't making a distinction. And it's not necessarily fair to label all refugees in the same category. Many are also very grateful....I realize there is a difference in outlook but it may not translate into serious issues.

Yeah -- and I'd support YOU if you stuck to that distinction. I'd jump foxholes and JOIN YOU if you were ONLY making the point that Islam can thrive in Western countries if they are culturally assimilated and fear the threat from radicalized Muslims as much as the West now does.

But you prefer to be a Pinata filled with factoids trying to defend ALL of ISLAM -- including the MAJORITY that only knows dictatorial theocracies with UGLY repressive laws and customs. And in your zeal to do that -- you drag EVERYTHING Christian, Jewish or Nazified into the mix.

I missed the part where the apologists for Dylan Roof came out and USED Radical Muslim Terrorists to MINIMIZE the awful deed that he committed. Has no bearing on THIS issue. Also just get the strange suicidal bent you have for MINIMIZING the security threats that we're now seeing.

You use Politifact like they are an objective fountain of LEGAL truth on matters. FACTS don't matter. Because facts are plentiful and full of contention when ASSERTED as a proof of anything. I've seen fact-checkers (maybe PolitiFact, maybe another ) actually use your method to minimize the danger of terrorism. I remember it well, because it was obscenely naive. And that was they REFUTED some claim about the danger of terrorist attacks by comparing the "death rate" to lightning. Could be a chuckle, but it was a "fact" of sorts. But a stupid one to use in winning an argument. Because LIGHTNING is NOT illegal, immoral, or an UNAVOIDABLE risk. And any "fact-checker" THAT DESPERATE to declare something phony -- needs to have their "fact-checking licence revoked"... You need to PROVE assertions. Facts are USED for that. But they in themselves are subject to qualification, BIASED SELECTION, and misuse.

The kamikaze pinata thing is only gonna change hearts and minds if you first acknowledge the FEARS and the PROBLEMS. I suggest you look at the monumental cataclysmic results of taking a culturally ISOLATED and carefree SMALL Swedish island with ONE cop and ONE murder in the last 200 years and having the Federal Govt there PLOP DOWN a 2500 person Muslim Refugee Center in town. And have the BALLS to tell the folks on that island to "Deal with It" and STFU...

THEN -- MAYBE -- you'll understand the baseball bats and incoming ordinance being lobbed at you..

Which doctor performed your backbone implant?

It looks to have taken quite well.

Sorry you took that as any kind of scathing criticism. It's dialogue and suggestion. When you have an OP POLL asking if Muslims should be banned from all Western countries and 66% right now AGREE to that, I've got to side with Coyote. And if it turns out that the 2 of us are REALLY in a minority on that question -- I want people in my foxhole that can EXPLAIN why that's an awful idea.

Not necessary to defend ALL of the Islamic world to make complete Muslim bans go away. In fact -- it's NOT POSSIBLE. But completely banning Islam from Western World or bombing Mecca are TWO proposals I'm not gonna let get implemented.

We need smarter and more efficient government. Ones that will show humanitarian heart in ways other than housing refugees that have no desire or intent to become "westernized". Like creating safe zones in the war zones like 5 or 6 YEARS ago and starting NEW cities and infrastructure within them...

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Not necessary to defend ALL of the Islamic world to make complete Muslim bans go away. In fact -- it's NOT POSSIBLE. But completely banning Islam from Western World or bombing Mecca are TWO proposals I'm not gonna let get implemented.

The People of Spain are very proud to have done that centuries ago. I guess they got tired of shipping off 3,000 blonde virgins ti the Caliphate as tribute

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Apparently she also doesn't like to recognize the Muslim American military members who have died for our country. Another fake-patriot who really doesn't support the troops.

3rd generation American Muslims do not have a cultural disconnect between their religion and living in America. MOST of the 1st and 2nd gen immigrants ALSO do not have an issue with American freedoms and values.

But REFUGEES from war zones that just want to go SOMEWHERE to survive -- don't necessarily even WANT TO BE American or British or Australian. We're talking about THOSE people. NOT the few who end up in Arlington Cemetery.

A lot of people here are talking about all Muslims. They aren't making a distinction. And it's not necessarily fair to label all refugees in the same category. Many are also very grateful....I realize there is a difference in outlook but it may not translate into serious issues.

Yeah -- and I'd support YOU if you stuck to that distinction. I'd jump foxholes and JOIN YOU if you were ONLY making the point that Islam can thrive in Western countries if they are culturally assimilated and fear the threat from radicalized Muslims as much as the West now does.

But you prefer to be a Pinata filled with factoids trying to defend ALL of ISLAM -- including the MAJORITY that only knows dictatorial theocracies with UGLY repressive laws and customs. And in your zeal to do that -- you drag EVERYTHING Christian, Jewish or Nazified into the mix.

I missed the part where the apologists for Dylan Roof came out and USED Radical Muslim Terrorists to MINIMIZE the awful deed that he committed. Has no bearing on THIS issue. Also just get the strange suicidal bent you have for MINIMIZING the security threats that we're now seeing.

You use Politifact like they are an objective fountain of LEGAL truth on matters. FACTS don't matter. Because facts are plentiful and full of contention when ASSERTED as a proof of anything. I've seen fact-checkers (maybe PolitiFact, maybe another ) actually use your method to minimize the danger of terrorism. I remember it well, because it was obscenely naive. And that was they REFUTED some claim about the danger of terrorist attacks by comparing the "death rate" to lightning. Could be a chuckle, but it was a "fact" of sorts. But a stupid one to use in winning an argument. Because LIGHTNING is NOT illegal, immoral, or an UNAVOIDABLE risk. And any "fact-checker" THAT DESPERATE to declare something phony -- needs to have their "fact-checking licence revoked"... You need to PROVE assertions. Facts are USED for that. But they in themselves are subject to qualification, BIASED SELECTION, and misuse.

The kamikaze pinata thing is only gonna change hearts and minds if you first acknowledge the FEARS and the PROBLEMS. I suggest you look at the monumental cataclysmic results of taking a culturally ISOLATED and carefree SMALL Swedish island with ONE cop and ONE murder in the last 200 years and having the Federal Govt there PLOP DOWN a 2500 person Muslim Refugee Center in town. And have the BALLS to tell the folks on that island to "Deal with It" and STFU...

THEN -- MAYBE -- you'll understand the baseball bats and incoming ordinance being lobbed at you..

Which doctor performed your backbone implant?

It looks to have taken quite well.

Sorry you took that as any kind of scathing criticism. It's dialogue and suggestion. When you have an OP POLL asking if Muslims should be banned from all Western countries and 66% right now AGREE to that, I've got to side with Coyote. And if it turns out that the 2 of us are REALLY in a minority on that question -- I want people in my foxhole that can EXPLAIN why that's an awful idea.

Not necessary to defend ALL of the Islamic world to make complete Muslim bans go away. In fact -- it's NOT POSSIBLE. But completely banning Islam from Western World or bombing Mecca are TWO proposals I'm not gonna let get implemented.

We need smarter and more efficient government. Ones that will show humanitarian heart in ways other than housing refugees that have no desire or intent to become "westernized". Like creating safe zones in the war zones like 5 or 6 YEARS ago and starting NEW cities and infrastructure within them...

The problem is this isn't new, its been going on for centuries. Everyone has grand ideas and the only thing they understand is death. Are there good Muslims? Yes. But how do you distinguish between the radicals and the good?

Sorry but I don't want our children growing up in this. The number of Americans opposing Islam is growing and with each new attack the number increases. The clock is ticking for them to straighten up and fly right. Or crash and burn...their choice

 

[frigidweirdo]

What would be the harm of taking none for five years?

Because 5 years can mean death for some of those people.

Bringing them here could mean death to some of our people.

10,000 deaths a year from guns, and you have a problem only with the dozen or so dead from Terrorism..... what? How is that logical?

You suppprt the largest hate group on the planet, Muslims out of the west now, apologist scum off our streets, Je Suis Breivik!

No. You're not Breivik....you're just some scared little internet poster boy who lives his violence vicariously thru a mass murderer.

Wow, I can't see the post of the poster you're replying to, because they're on ignore. But stating that he wants to go around killing people because they don't agree with him, basically puts him in the same category as the Muslim Terrorists and US govt.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not necessary to defend ALL of the Islamic world to make complete Muslim bans go away. In fact -- it's NOT POSSIBLE. But completely banning Islam from Western World or bombing Mecca are TWO proposals I'm not gonna let get implemented.

The People of Spain are very proud to have done that centuries ago. I guess they got tired of shipping off 3,000 blonde virgins ti the Caliphate as tribute

Indeed. Our first intro to "Islamic Terrorists" was during Thom Jeffersons' admin. 3000 blonde virgins could pay for a lot of MidEast oil. Weren't enough "blonde" virgins in Spain at the time to make the deal.

That was an occupation. Our issues are immigration policies. And we should be asking folks to come that WANT to be American or British. Not to live in isolated enclaves and PRETEND they are still in Syria or Sudan. That's an issue of how Western Govts don't function correctly and make chronically bad Foreign Policy. Not a call for another Crusade...

 

[flacaltenn]

3rd generation American Muslims do not have a cultural disconnect between their religion and living in America. MOST of the 1st and 2nd gen immigrants ALSO do not have an issue with American freedoms and values.

But REFUGEES from war zones that just want to go SOMEWHERE to survive -- don't necessarily even WANT TO BE American or British or Australian. We're talking about THOSE people. NOT the few who end up in Arlington Cemetery.

A lot of people here are talking about all Muslims. They aren't making a distinction. And it's not necessarily fair to label all refugees in the same category. Many are also very grateful....I realize there is a difference in outlook but it may not translate into serious issues.

Yeah -- and I'd support YOU if you stuck to that distinction. I'd jump foxholes and JOIN YOU if you were ONLY making the point that Islam can thrive in Western countries if they are culturally assimilated and fear the threat from radicalized Muslims as much as the West now does.

But you prefer to be a Pinata filled with factoids trying to defend ALL of ISLAM -- including the MAJORITY that only knows dictatorial theocracies with UGLY repressive laws and customs. And in your zeal to do that -- you drag EVERYTHING Christian, Jewish or Nazified into the mix.

I missed the part where the apologists for Dylan Roof came out and USED Radical Muslim Terrorists to MINIMIZE the awful deed that he committed. Has no bearing on THIS issue. Also just get the strange suicidal bent you have for MINIMIZING the security threats that we're now seeing.

You use Politifact like they are an objective fountain of LEGAL truth on matters. FACTS don't matter. Because facts are plentiful and full of contention when ASSERTED as a proof of anything. I've seen fact-checkers (maybe PolitiFact, maybe another ) actually use your method to minimize the danger of terrorism. I remember it well, because it was obscenely naive. And that was they REFUTED some claim about the danger of terrorist attacks by comparing the "death rate" to lightning. Could be a chuckle, but it was a "fact" of sorts. But a stupid one to use in winning an argument. Because LIGHTNING is NOT illegal, immoral, or an UNAVOIDABLE risk. And any "fact-checker" THAT DESPERATE to declare something phony -- needs to have their "fact-checking licence revoked"... You need to PROVE assertions. Facts are USED for that. But they in themselves are subject to qualification, BIASED SELECTION, and misuse.

The kamikaze pinata thing is only gonna change hearts and minds if you first acknowledge the FEARS and the PROBLEMS. I suggest you look at the monumental cataclysmic results of taking a culturally ISOLATED and carefree SMALL Swedish island with ONE cop and ONE murder in the last 200 years and having the Federal Govt there PLOP DOWN a 2500 person Muslim Refugee Center in town. And have the BALLS to tell the folks on that island to "Deal with It" and STFU...

THEN -- MAYBE -- you'll understand the baseball bats and incoming ordinance being lobbed at you..

Which doctor performed your backbone implant?

It looks to have taken quite well.

Sorry you took that as any kind of scathing criticism. It's dialogue and suggestion. When you have an OP POLL asking if Muslims should be banned from all Western countries and 66% right now AGREE to that, I've got to side with Coyote. And if it turns out that the 2 of us are REALLY in a minority on that question -- I want people in my foxhole that can EXPLAIN why that's an awful idea.

Not necessary to defend ALL of the Islamic world to make complete Muslim bans go away. In fact -- it's NOT POSSIBLE. But completely banning Islam from Western World or bombing Mecca are TWO proposals I'm not gonna let get implemented.

We need smarter and more efficient government. Ones that will show humanitarian heart in ways other than housing refugees that have no desire or intent to become "westernized". Like creating safe zones in the war zones like 5 or 6 YEARS ago and starting NEW cities and infrastructure within them...

The problem is this isn't new, its been going on for centuries. Everyone has grand ideas and the only thing they understand is death. Are there good Muslims? Yes. But how do you distinguish between the radicals and the good?

Sorry but I don't want our children growing up in this. The number of Americans opposing Islam is growing and with each new attack the number increases. The clock is ticking for them to straighten up and fly right. Or crash and burn...their choice

There's a LONG LIST of US loyalists from Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan that RISKED THEIR LIVES for us when we were fighting radicals in THEIR countries that WANT to come here. They would be PRIME candidates for HELPING us to decide who is entering to BECOME american and who only want to come here to continue the crap culture that they were born into. There's ONE way to tell. Those folks should be WELCOMED here. Because we KNOW who they are and their lives are now in danger in their home country.

If govt had brains -- this would be ONE obvious way to tell....

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Ask any liberal. They can't tell you what an "American" is. There is an American culture. Most understand that. Most liberals do not.

 

[leftwinger]

We need smarter and more efficient government. Ones that will show humanitarian heart in ways other than housing refugees that have no desire or intent to become "westernized". Like creating safe zones in the war zones like 5 or 6 YEARS ago and starting NEW cities and infrastructure within them...

Say what? We are so far in debt...........why is it our problem? Let them fix their own messes. They have had about 1000 years and they are getting worse. Hopeless. Useless. They Contribute nothing positive. Iran is the best of the bunch and that is saying something. We have enough problems in the USA. Build new cities? with infrastructure? Matthew hello.......Let the ME build what they need.

How about a Global Burn the Koran party day? Don't you hear about the non-stop un-provoked attacks?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

A lot of people here are talking about all Muslims. They aren't making a distinction. And it's not necessarily fair to label all refugees in the same category. Many are also very grateful....I realize there is a difference in outlook but it may not translate into serious issues.

Yeah -- and I'd support YOU if you stuck to that distinction. I'd jump foxholes and JOIN YOU if you were ONLY making the point that Islam can thrive in Western countries if they are culturally assimilated and fear the threat from radicalized Muslims as much as the West now does.

But you prefer to be a Pinata filled with factoids trying to defend ALL of ISLAM -- including the MAJORITY that only knows dictatorial theocracies with UGLY repressive laws and customs. And in your zeal to do that -- you drag EVERYTHING Christian, Jewish or Nazified into the mix.

I missed the part where the apologists for Dylan Roof came out and USED Radical Muslim Terrorists to MINIMIZE the awful deed that he committed. Has no bearing on THIS issue. Also just get the strange suicidal bent you have for MINIMIZING the security threats that we're now seeing.

You use Politifact like they are an objective fountain of LEGAL truth on matters. FACTS don't matter. Because facts are plentiful and full of contention when ASSERTED as a proof of anything. I've seen fact-checkers (maybe PolitiFact, maybe another ) actually use your method to minimize the danger of terrorism. I remember it well, because it was obscenely naive. And that was they REFUTED some claim about the danger of terrorist attacks by comparing the "death rate" to lightning. Could be a chuckle, but it was a "fact" of sorts. But a stupid one to use in winning an argument. Because LIGHTNING is NOT illegal, immoral, or an UNAVOIDABLE risk. And any "fact-checker" THAT DESPERATE to declare something phony -- needs to have their "fact-checking licence revoked"... You need to PROVE assertions. Facts are USED for that. But they in themselves are subject to qualification, BIASED SELECTION, and misuse.

The kamikaze pinata thing is only gonna change hearts and minds if you first acknowledge the FEARS and the PROBLEMS. I suggest you look at the monumental cataclysmic results of taking a culturally ISOLATED and carefree SMALL Swedish island with ONE cop and ONE murder in the last 200 years and having the Federal Govt there PLOP DOWN a 2500 person Muslim Refugee Center in town. And have the BALLS to tell the folks on that island to "Deal with It" and STFU...

THEN -- MAYBE -- you'll understand the baseball bats and incoming ordinance being lobbed at you..

Which doctor performed your backbone implant?

It looks to have taken quite well.

Sorry you took that as any kind of scathing criticism. It's dialogue and suggestion. When you have an OP POLL asking if Muslims should be banned from all Western countries and 66% right now AGREE to that, I've got to side with Coyote. And if it turns out that the 2 of us are REALLY in a minority on that question -- I want people in my foxhole that can EXPLAIN why that's an awful idea.

Not necessary to defend ALL of the Islamic world to make complete Muslim bans go away. In fact -- it's NOT POSSIBLE. But completely banning Islam from Western World or bombing Mecca are TWO proposals I'm not gonna let get implemented.

We need smarter and more efficient government. Ones that will show humanitarian heart in ways other than housing refugees that have no desire or intent to become "westernized". Like creating safe zones in the war zones like 5 or 6 YEARS ago and starting NEW cities and infrastructure within them...

The problem is this isn't new, its been going on for centuries. Everyone has grand ideas and the only thing they understand is death. Are there good Muslims? Yes. But how do you distinguish between the radicals and the good?

Sorry but I don't want our children growing up in this. The number of Americans opposing Islam is growing and with each new attack the number increases. The clock is ticking for them to straighten up and fly right. Or crash and burn...their choice

There's a LONG LIST of US loyalists from Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan that RISKED THEIR LIVES for us when we were fighting radicals in THEIR countries that WANT to come here. They would be PRIME candidates for HELPING us to decide who is entering to BECOME american and who only want to come here to continue the crap culture that they were born into. There's ONE way to tell. Those folks should be WELCOMED here. Because we KNOW who they are and their lives are now in danger in their home country.

If govt had brains -- this would be ONE obvious way to tell....

Perhaps, I have a very good friend who was in the ME while in the USAF, he told me the same once, but also added Muslims throughout history have had problems assimilating and blending with other cultures. My best friend was in Iraq and he told me the same, very few could be trusted. Finally my father was in the ME, he knew Islam and he knew Muslims, he told me when I was very little what you see happening was going to happen...I remember asking him why and he said "why does a dog hunt? It's their nature."

 

[Political Junky]

Yeah -- and I'd support YOU if you stuck to that distinction. I'd jump foxholes and JOIN YOU if you were ONLY making the point that Islam can thrive in Western countries if they are culturally assimilated and fear the threat from radicalized Muslims as much as the West now does.

But you prefer to be a Pinata filled with factoids trying to defend ALL of ISLAM -- including the MAJORITY that only knows dictatorial theocracies with UGLY repressive laws and customs. And in your zeal to do that -- you drag EVERYTHING Christian, Jewish or Nazified into the mix.

I missed the part where the apologists for Dylan Roof came out and USED Radical Muslim Terrorists to MINIMIZE the awful deed that he committed. Has no bearing on THIS issue. Also just get the strange suicidal bent you have for MINIMIZING the security threats that we're now seeing.

You use Politifact like they are an objective fountain of LEGAL truth on matters. FACTS don't matter. Because facts are plentiful and full of contention when ASSERTED as a proof of anything. I've seen fact-checkers (maybe PolitiFact, maybe another ) actually use your method to minimize the danger of terrorism. I remember it well, because it was obscenely naive. And that was they REFUTED some claim about the danger of terrorist attacks by comparing the "death rate" to lightning. Could be a chuckle, but it was a "fact" of sorts. But a stupid one to use in winning an argument. Because LIGHTNING is NOT illegal, immoral, or an UNAVOIDABLE risk. And any "fact-checker" THAT DESPERATE to declare something phony -- needs to have their "fact-checking licence revoked"... You need to PROVE assertions. Facts are USED for that. But they in themselves are subject to qualification, BIASED SELECTION, and misuse.

The kamikaze pinata thing is only gonna change hearts and minds if you first acknowledge the FEARS and the PROBLEMS. I suggest you look at the monumental cataclysmic results of taking a culturally ISOLATED and carefree SMALL Swedish island with ONE cop and ONE murder in the last 200 years and having the Federal Govt there PLOP DOWN a 2500 person Muslim Refugee Center in town. And have the BALLS to tell the folks on that island to "Deal with It" and STFU...

THEN -- MAYBE -- you'll understand the baseball bats and incoming ordinance being lobbed at you..

Which doctor performed your backbone implant?

It looks to have taken quite well.

Sorry you took that as any kind of scathing criticism. It's dialogue and suggestion. When you have an OP POLL asking if Muslims should be banned from all Western countries and 66% right now AGREE to that, I've got to side with Coyote. And if it turns out that the 2 of us are REALLY in a minority on that question -- I want people in my foxhole that can EXPLAIN why that's an awful idea.

Not necessary to defend ALL of the Islamic world to make complete Muslim bans go away. In fact -- it's NOT POSSIBLE. But completely banning Islam from Western World or bombing Mecca are TWO proposals I'm not gonna let get implemented.

We need smarter and more efficient government. Ones that will show humanitarian heart in ways other than housing refugees that have no desire or intent to become "westernized". Like creating safe zones in the war zones like 5 or 6 YEARS ago and starting NEW cities and infrastructure within them...

The problem is this isn't new, its been going on for centuries. Everyone has grand ideas and the only thing they understand is death. Are there good Muslims? Yes. But how do you distinguish between the radicals and the good?

Sorry but I don't want our children growing up in this. The number of Americans opposing Islam is growing and with each new attack the number increases. The clock is ticking for them to straighten up and fly right. Or crash and burn...their choice

There's a LONG LIST of US loyalists from Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan that RISKED THEIR LIVES for us when we were fighting radicals in THEIR countries that WANT to come here. They would be PRIME candidates for HELPING us to decide who is entering to BECOME american and who only want to come here to continue the crap culture that they were born into. There's ONE way to tell. Those folks should be WELCOMED here. Because we KNOW who they are and their lives are now in danger in their home country.

If govt had brains -- this would be ONE obvious way to tell....

Perhaps, I have a very good friend who was in the ME while in the USAF, he told me the same once, but also added Muslims throughout history have had problems assimilating and blending with other cultures. My best friend was in Iraq and he told me the same, very few could be trusted. Finally my father was in the ME, he knew Islam and he knew Muslims, he told me when I was very little what you see happening was going to happen...I remember asking him why and he said "why does a dog hunt? It's their nature."

I think most Right Wingnuts on here were taught to hate.

 

[flacaltenn]

We need smarter and more efficient government. Ones that will show humanitarian heart in ways other than housing refugees that have no desire or intent to become "westernized". Like creating safe zones in the war zones like 5 or 6 YEARS ago and starting NEW cities and infrastructure within them...

Say what? We are so far in debt...........why is it our problem? Let them fix their own messes. They have had about 1000 years and they are getting worse. Hopeless. Useless. They Contribute nothing positive. Iran is the best of the bunch and that is saying something. We have enough problems in the USA. Build new cities? with infrastructure? Matthew hello.......Let the ME build what they need.

How about a Global Burn the Koran party day? Don't you hear about the non-stop un-provoked attacks?

This country went through 3 ******* decades of bombing 3 to 5 Arab Muslim countries a year. We locked up Iraq with a madman and caused the deaths of 100s of THOUSANDS of Iraqi from lack of medicine, food, infrastructure for TWELVE YEARS, bombed them DAILY and THEN expected them to thank us for "liberating them". We then proceeded to take 3 or 4 other relatively stable theocratic dictatorial countries and turn them into smoking holes and ideal breeding grounds for Radical Islamic Terrorists.

We BROKE IT -- We buy it. We should have kissed Assad's ass and got him his country back in exchange for setting up safe zones to sort the non-combatants from the combatants. Funding for infrastructure to come as PAYMENTS for our aid in creating and protecting those zones. No millions of refugees flooding Europe and being "parceled off" to the US and Australia.

And we should finally learn the lesson that we are NOT gonna make "Democracy bloom" in that region. and that these countries NEED brutal dictatorial bastards to govern them and KEEP them from killing each other. The LParty told America that 25 years ago and BOTH parties ignored us and called us "treasonous doves"... Sorry kids, we've been consistently RIGHT on this for close to 3 decades. WE -- just want to get out of this nightmare as badly as ANY Dem or Repub. And WE would make it happen..