Washington State just says NO to banning refugees

[docufo]

Anti- and pro-refugee demonstrators clash in Olympia

Originally published November 20, 2015 at 2:48 pm | Updated November
20, 2015 at 7:36 pm

Protesters against Syrian refugees coming to Washington gathered Friday
outside the state Capitol, where they encountered a crowd of pro-refugee
demonstrators.

By Joseph O’Sullivan

Seattle Times Olympia bureau

OLYMPIA — Demonstrators opposing refugees outside the Capitol
encountered nearly an equal number of counter-demonstrators Friday in a
situation that led, at times, to shouting and pushing.

About 250 people showed up on the steps of the Capitol to call for a
halt to resettling refugees in the state, according to a crowd estimate
by the Washington State Patrol. About 200 counter-demonstrators appeared
in support of refugees.

Speakers for the rally, organized by a local chapter of the organization
ACT for America, criticized Gov. Jay Inslee’s remarks this week in which
he said the state should welcome refugees, including Syrians.

Governors don’t appear to have authority to block refugees. Still, about
half the nation’s governors have called for a halt to accepting Syrian
refugees. Authorities say at least one of the attackers in the Nov. 13
Paris terrorist strike may have crossed into Europe with refugees from
Syria.

In Congress, the House on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to halt the
acceptance of Syrian refugees.

Counter-demonstrators in Olympia on Friday chanted phrases such as
“Jesus was a refugee,” and “Refugees are welcome, racists go home.”

Men with the refugee protesters, bearing side arms and walkie-talkies,
formed a line to keep counter-demonstrators from getting too close to
the refugee rally, which was permitted by the state.

Between October 2014 and this past September, 25 refugees from Syria —
which has been mired in a civil war — have resettled in Washington
state. The Obama administration has announced it will allow 10,000
Syrians to resettle in the U.S. over the next year.

Also on Friday, Inslee sent a letter to GOP state senators who had
called on him to pause refugee settlements until the vetting process
could be assured.

Inslee reiterated the vetting steps, which involve the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of State and include interviews
and multiple checks. That vetting, on average, takes 18 to 24 months,
according to the letter.

Inslee wrote, “I do not agree with the premise, unfortunately espoused
by you and too many elected officials from other states, that our nation
and our state should cease to welcome refugees fleeing oppression and
conflict in other nations.”

Fewer than 2,000 of the 4 million refugees from Syria have settled in
the United States since 2012, according to a report by The New York
Times, including small numbers in Seattle, Spokane and Richland.

Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center said her group has been
tracking ACT for America’s national organization.

“We’re very concerned about their anti-Muslim rhetoric,” said Beirich,
director of the law center’s Intelligence Project. “And we plan to add
that organization, at least its headquarters, to our hate list for 2015.”
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/anti-and-pro-refugee-demonstrators-clash-in-olympia/

I voted for Jay Inslee (D) for Governor and, once again, I've been
satisfied he's not going along with the stampede of nationalistic
hysteria over Syrian refugees having terrorists hidden among them,
driven mostly by Republicans across the nation.

It would seem Americans these days think we're living in a nice quiet
peaceful caring environment in the States that needs to be preserved by
ensuring no possible external threat is allowed in.

Well, realistically, what is to keep a few Syrians from converting over
to Islamic radicalism that has kept a variety of Americans from
converting over? LOL!

It's likely to happen at some point. EH? But, does that mean we need to
shut them out? Well, again, realistically, they're not just coming here
with being vetted. There is a long wait for processing via security
background checks already. Yet, we all are adult enough (aren't we?) to
understand that even those stringent safeguards will not keep
conversions from occurring at some point.

Let's just think of America for a calm rational moment as a place of
murderous violence now and historically, of racism, religious bigotry,
exploitation, and people living in fear of each other, heavily armed.
Surveillance everywhere. Spying common as rain. Violence extolled for
its entertainment value, manifesting massively in every media venue.
Mass gun murders so common the nation's become a goddamn daily shooting
gallery.

Let's remind ourselves, in another calm rational moment, if we can
muster it in these insane days, that America has much, much less to fear
from international terrorists than from its everyday citizenry.

One can understand the knee-jerk overreactions and the political
motivations fully, in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Paris
strikes by ISIL (and of the downing of the Russian airliner over the
Sinai). Hundreds of dead innocent folk of two major nations, and smaller
but bloody follow-ups by Boko Haram, etc.

It's an increasingly violent era, there's no doubt about it. But, it's
notable that France, the most recent major victim, has not sought to
shut out the refugees, but has decided to allow more of them in. There's
a clear cognizance of the fact that the overwhelming majority of
refugees are victims, too, and there's no humanitarianism in making them
suffer unnecessarily more than they have already.

Take a cue from France, Americans. And get your hysterical heads screwed
back on tight. I'm proud of my state's citizens and government for not
falling into the old trap of high emotionalism over events, and in the
process, forgetting our humanitarianism, our constitution, our sense of
doing the right thing.

:))~~

[Steven Douglas]

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 1:42:17 AM UTC-8, docufo wrote:
>
> I voted for Jay Inslee (D) for Governor and, once again, I've been
> satisfied he's not going along with the stampede of nationalistic
> hysteria over Syrian refugees having terrorists hidden among them,
> driven mostly by Republicans across the nation.
>
> It would seem Americans these days think we're living in a nice quiet
> peaceful caring environment in the States that needs to be preserved by
> ensuring no possible external threat is allowed in.
>
> Well, realistically, what is to keep a few Syrians from converting over
> to Islamic radicalism that has kept a variety of Americans from
> converting over? LOL!
>
> It's likely to happen at some point. EH?

The Boston Marathon bombers were brought here as children, as part
of a family seeking asylum. I thought I'd throw this point in
here, just so I can watch you ignore it.

>
> But, does that mean we need to
> shut them out? Well, again, realistically, they're not just coming here
> with being vetted. There is a long wait for processing via security
> background checks already. Yet, we all are adult enough (aren't we?) to
> understand that even those stringent safeguards will not keep
> conversions from occurring at some point.

I'm not surprised that you're completely unconcered about the
risk.

>
> Let's just think of America for a calm rational moment as a place of
> murderous violence now and historically, of racism, religious bigotry,
> exploitation, and people living in fear of each other, heavily armed.
> Surveillance everywhere. Spying common as rain. Violence extolled for
> its entertainment value, manifesting massively in every media venue.
> Mass gun murders so common the nation's become a goddamn daily shooting
> gallery.

Which leads me to a new question for you to ignore -- why would
you want to subject the Syrian refugees to such a horrible country
as ours? Seriously, why are you so anxious to bring them into
(what you consider to be) the worst country to ever exist in this
world?

Knowing you'll ignore this question, I will be asking it in other
posts, just so I can watch you ignore it in those posts as well.

>
> Let's remind ourselves, in another calm rational moment, if we can
> muster it in these insane days, that America has much, much less to fear
> from international terrorists than from its everyday citizenry.

Yet you want to force those refugees to live in our horrible
country. Why is that? What is your motivation for wanting them to
have to endure this country that you have said you wish you could
leave and live somewhere else?

>
> One can understand the knee-jerk overreactions and the political
> motivations fully, in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Paris
> strikes by ISIL (and of the downing of the Russian airliner over the
> Sinai). Hundreds of dead innocent folk of two major nations, and smaller
> but bloody follow-ups by Boko Haram, etc.

But even with all of that, it's got to be better than what we have
here (based on your hatred of this country).

>
> It's an increasingly violent era, there's no doubt about it. But, it's
> notable that France, the most recent major victim, has not sought to
> shut out the refugees, but has decided to allow more of them in.

They're so stupid they don't even keep track of people who leave
their country to go fight for ISIS, but then later change their
minds and return to France.

>
> There's
> a clear cognizance of the fact that the overwhelming majority of
> refugees are victims, too, and there's no humanitarianism in making them
> suffer unnecessarily more than they have already.

Then why do you want to bring them here and make them suffer in a
country that you hate and wish you could leave?

>
> Take a cue from France, Americans. And get your hysterical heads screwed
> back on tight. I'm proud of my state's citizens and government for not
> falling into the old trap of high emotionalism over events, and in the
> process, forgetting our humanitarianism, our constitution, our sense of
> doing the right thing.

And someday, when some of them turn into newer versions of the
Boston bombers, you can be very proud of yourself for having
demanded that they be brought here.

[manfromu.f.o.]

OH, gee, it looks like you've asked this of me at least three times so
far. LOL!

You must be thinking you're got the zinger on me this time, eh? I said
already that they are fleeing a civil war and we're not in a state of
civil war (yet). That would alone give them significant advantage in
staying safe and secure.

And the rest of the answer is in this article:

Guess Who's Helping Seattle Homeless Veterans? Syrian Refugees

By Liz Jones • Nov 22, 2015

The debate about resettling Syrian refugees has some people asking, “Why
don’t we use that money on homeless veterans instead?”

We asked homeless veterans in downtown Seattle what they thought.

In line at the Millionaire’s Club, veteran Greg Klutcher shared his
view: "The whole reason veterans fought for what they did is so that
people like that could come here. Everybody needs a helping hand sometimes."

Klutcher has been homeless for six months.

Also in line was Damon Lyons, a veteran who said he’d like to see more
funding for homeless vets, but not at the expense of refugees.

“There should be middle ground,” Lyons said. “Those people are now in
distress.” He’s been homeless for two years.

Lyons and Klutcher were at an event hosted by the Seattle area’s Muslim
community. It’s called “Day of Dignity,” and it’s been hosted by the
Muslim community for the last 10 years. They give out sleeping bags,
haircuts and other items to hundreds of homeless people.

Among the volunteers were two brothers – Syrian refugees who came to
Seattle with their family a few months ago. The brothers volunteer at
events like this because they say they want to give back to the
community that's welcomed them.

Nabil Al-Salkini, 14, said he also "wants people to know that the image
of ISIS does not represent us."

His older brother Yazan Al-Salkini described why their family left Syria
more than four years ago. “Life stopped. We lost our home. It got
bombed. Burned down. We couldn’t go to school because civil war started.
We were about to be persecuted or killed.”

About 40 Syrian refugees have resettled in the Northwest since the war
started. President Barack Obama has pledged for the U.S. to take in at
least 10,000 Syrian refugees next year.

But some in Congress have pushed back, citing security concerns.

Al-Salkini says he still believes that Syrians will still be welcome here.

“I really have hope that other people from my community who are seeking
help as I do, have opportunity to come here and start a new life, as we
are starting to do,” he said.
http://kuow.org/post/guess-whos-helping-seattle-homeless-veterans-syrian-refugees

[Steven Douglas]

I figured if I asked it enough times in enough different threads,
you'd have great difficulty ignoring it. I was right.

>
> You must be thinking you're got the zinger on me this time, eh? I said
> already that they are fleeing a civil war and we're not in a state of
> civil war (yet).

Maybe they'll bring theirs with them.

>
> That would alone give them significant advantage in
> staying safe and secure.

I have to say, I like the way you're saying our society is just
better than theirs. This is real progress.

>
> And the rest of the answer is in this article:
>
> Guess Who's Helping Seattle Homeless Veterans? Syrian Refugees

The VA will help homeless veterans, too. But it's good to know all
those Syrian refugees will be coming here to help our veterans.
What would we do without them?

[manfromu.f.o.]

On 11/23/2015 9:55 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 12:39:34 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
>> On 11/22/2015 9:28 AM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 1:42:17 AM UTC-8, docufo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I voted for Jay Inslee (D) for Governor and, once again, I've been
>>>> satisfied he's not going along with the stampede of nationalistic
>>>> hysteria over Syrian refugees having terrorists hidden among them,
>>>> driven mostly by Republicans across the nation.
>>>>
>>>> It would seem Americans these days think we're living in a nice quiet
>>>> peaceful caring environment in the States that needs to be preserved by
>>>> ensuring no possible external threat is allowed in.
>>>>
>>>> Well, realistically, what is to keep a few Syrians from converting over
>>>> to Islamic radicalism that has kept a variety of Americans from
>>>> converting over? LOL!
>>>>
>>>> It's likely to happen at some point. EH?
>>>
>>> The Boston Marathon bombers were brought here as children, as part
>>> of a family seeking asylum. I thought I'd throw this point in
>>> here, just so I can watch you ignore it.

Children born, raised here by natural-born parents go real bad, too,
junior.

What's your point, exactly?

Maybe they'll be victims of the increasing number of mass shooters.
We're up to around 420 incidents for the year thus far.

>>
>> That would alone give them significant advantage in
>> staying safe and secure.
>
> I have to say, I like the way you're saying our society is just
> better than theirs. This is real progress.

Well, it wouldn't take much of a "civilized" society in most places on
Earth that would be as dangerous to live in as the war-torn Syria and
Iraq are. They're in an extreme situation that U.S. hegemony has helped
create, so I believe it our social responsibility to give them
sanctuary. And it's a crying shame we won't allow many more in.

>>
>> And the rest of the answer is in this article:
>>
>> Guess Who's Helping Seattle Homeless Veterans? Syrian Refugees
>
> The VA will help homeless veterans, too. But it's good to know all
> those Syrian refugees will be coming here to help our veterans.
> What would we do without them?
>

If they're not allowed in, as you desire, they won't be here at all to
do anyone any good, will they? We can throw out the "melting pot" boast,
then.

Bigot.

:))~~

[Steven Douglas]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 9:55 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 12:39:34 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2015 9:28 AM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 1:42:17 AM UTC-8, docufo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I voted for Jay Inslee (D) for Governor and, once again, I've been
> >>>> satisfied he's not going along with the stampede of nationalistic
> >>>> hysteria over Syrian refugees having terrorists hidden among them,
> >>>> driven mostly by Republicans across the nation.
> >>>>
> >>>> It would seem Americans these days think we're living in a nice quiet
> >>>> peaceful caring environment in the States that needs to be preserved by
> >>>> ensuring no possible external threat is allowed in.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, realistically, what is to keep a few Syrians from converting over
> >>>> to Islamic radicalism that has kept a variety of Americans from
> >>>> converting over? LOL!
> >>>>
> >>>> It's likely to happen at some point. EH?
> >>>
> >>> The Boston Marathon bombers were brought here as children, as part
> >>> of a family seeking asylum. I thought I'd throw this point in
> >>> here, just so I can watch you ignore it.
>
> Children born, raised here by natural-born parents go real bad, too,
> junior.

True. A few years ago, parents who lived in the gang-infested
parts of L.A. feared their kids would join a gang. So, many of
those parents moved their families to new developments in the
outer suburbs near San Bernardino, moving their children away from
the bad influences of the gangs. Do you know what happened?

>
> What's your point, exactly?

It's a shame some of the Arab countries aren't taking very many
Syrian refugees and integrating them into their countries. But no,
it's up to those of us in the West to do that. Let's just hope and
pray that we're not bringing in more potential Boston Marathon
bombers.

Here's what one of them wrote before the bombing: "The U.S.
government is killing our innocent civilians, but most of you
already know that... I can't stand to see such [bullet hole] go
unpunished," says the handwriting captured in the image obtained
by ABC News from a law enforcement official in Massachusetts. "We
Muslims are one body. You kill one of us, you hurt [bullet hole]
us all."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607060/We-Muslims-one-body-You-kill-one-hurt-Note-Boston-Marathon-bombing-suspect-Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-left-scribbled-inside-boat-shows-hatred-American-government-led-fatal-attack.html

Yet you want to force them to live in this horrible country. What
is wrong with you, that you would bring those people to a country
you'd rather not live in yourself?

>
> >> That would alone give them significant advantage in
> >> staying safe and secure.
> >
> > I have to say, I like the way you're saying our society is just
> > better than theirs. This is real progress.
>
> Well, it wouldn't take much of a "civilized" society in most places on
> Earth that would be as dangerous to live in as the war-torn Syria and
> Iraq are. They're in an extreme situation that U.S. hegemony has helped
> create,

Explain how we helped create it in Syria. Though, as I explained
elsewhere, I do understand how Obama helped create it in Iraq.

>
> so I believe it our social responsibility to give them
> sanctuary.

Sanctuary? In a country with all those mass shootings you
mentioned just above? Sheesh, we've got to be the worst place
for those people, putting their lives in danger just by living
here. Yet you insist that they come. Seriously, what is wrong
with you?

>
> And it's a crying shame we won't allow many more in.

You want to put as many as you can in danger then?

>
> >> And the rest of the answer is in this article:
> >>
> >> Guess Who's Helping Seattle Homeless Veterans? Syrian Refugees
> >
> > The VA will help homeless veterans, too. But it's good to know all
> > those Syrian refugees will be coming here to help our veterans.
> > What would we do without them?
>
> If they're not allowed in, as you desire, they won't be here at all to
> do anyone any good, will they?

Maybe they will civilize us, so we can be more like the country
they left behind.

>
> We can throw out the "melting pot" boast, then.

Uh, no, I've never said I'm against regular immigration. In fact,
I proclaim that I am pro-immigration. I've said many times that
I celebrate the immigrants I work with on a near daily basis. I
love the way immigrants love this country, whereas some of the
ungrateful people who were born here hate it.

[angelagent]

The infrastructure, social, political, and otherwise, are intact here,
junior. There is no civil war, not yet anyway. And we are socially
responsible for those Third World nations (or any other) that have come
under hegemonic design by the U.S. and its allies. I'm pointing out that
using a study in extreme contrasts to overlook our growing social and
political crises, is a favorite tactic of nationalists, revisionists,
and apologists. We cannot improve unless we face what our problems
exactly are. It is not hating America to want to see it improve, nor
live up to its legal promise to all its citizens of equality, justice,
democracy, and it had had most of its history not affirm that it had for
minorities. Shutting out Arab Muslim refugees in a time of national fear
hysteria and loathing of radical elements may be a popular "lynch mob"
movement of sorts, but it is the antithesis of our Constitution.
Additionally, it is the antithesis of Christianity to not give shelter
to those in dire need of help. The Good Samaritan principle is being
tossed to the wayside in favor of transitory fears and hatred, racism
and religious bigotry. It's happened many times before. And with each
crisis, it's always had a sizable horde of supporters like yourself. You
should be fucking ashamed of yourself for jumping on this foolish
bandwagon. But, no, you're just a fucking fool, junior, an extremist
yourself, and paranoid as hell.

>>
>>>> That would alone give them significant advantage in
>>>> staying safe and secure.
>>>
>>> I have to say, I like the way you're saying our society is just
>>> better than theirs. This is real progress.
>>
>> Well, it wouldn't take much of a "civilized" society in most places on
>> Earth that would be as dangerous to live in as the war-torn Syria and
>> Iraq are. They're in an extreme situation that U.S. hegemony has helped
>> create,
>
> Explain how we helped create it in Syria. Though, as I explained
> elsewhere, I do understand how Obama helped create it in Iraq.

Overall, the dogged pursuit of domination of governments in that region,
both we and they tied together in an unholy alliance to make great
profit and expand power, have coerced or forced their peoples into
untenable social and political conditions. And it started long, long ago
with the carving up of Arab tribal lands, and since 1953's Iran
government overthrow by the CIA, it's been getting more involved and
dangerous to them and even us. And since 9-11, it's exploded in scope
and impact.

>>
>> so I believe it our social responsibility to give them
>> sanctuary.
>
> Sanctuary? In a country with all those mass shootings you
> mentioned just above? Sheesh, we've got to be the worst place
> for those people, putting their lives in danger just by living
> here. Yet you insist that they come. Seriously, what is wrong
> with you?
>>
>> And it's a crying shame we won't allow many more in.
>
> You want to put as many as you can in danger then?

Knock off the tired ol' running sarcasm, junior. I've fully explained my
position, but it is your restrictive paranoid xenophobic Islamaphobic
mindset that should be your concern. It's the antithesis of both our
Constitution and your religion's precepts. Have you no respect for the
constitutional rights of all people here, or even any self-respect???

>>
>>>> And the rest of the answer is in this article:
>>>>
>>>> Guess Who's Helping Seattle Homeless Veterans? Syrian Refugees
>>>
>>> The VA will help homeless veterans, too. But it's good to know all
>>> those Syrian refugees will be coming here to help our veterans.
>>> What would we do without them?
>>
>> If they're not allowed in, as you desire, they won't be here at all to
>> do anyone any good, will they?
>
> Maybe they will civilize us, so we can be more like the country
> they left behind.
>>
>> We can throw out the "melting pot" boast, then.
>
> Uh, no, I've never said I'm against regular immigration. In fact,
> I proclaim that I am pro-immigration. I've said many times that
> I celebrate the immigrants I work with on a near daily basis. I
> love the way immigrants love this country, whereas some of the
> ungrateful people who were born here hate it.
>

Oh yeah, as long as they're not from the Mideast strife-torn nations.

Tragic, junior.

:))~~

[Steven Douglas]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:55:16 AM UTC-8, angelagent wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 10:13 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
>
> >> Maybe they'll be victims of the increasing number of mass shooters.
> >> We're up to around 420 incidents for the year thus far.
> >
> > Yet you want to force them to live in this horrible country. What
> > is wrong with you, that you would bring those people to a country
> > you'd rather not live in yourself?
>
> The infrastructure, social, political, and otherwise, are intact here,
> junior.

Do you think that's just good luck, or what? And they just have
bad luck? Oh, that's right, you think we're the cause of their
bad luck. I almost forgot that, because it's so ridiculous.

>
> There is no civil war, not yet anyway. And we are socially
> responsible for those Third World nations (or any other) that have come
> under hegemonic design by the U.S. and its allies.

Have you explained how we're responsible for what's happening in
Syria? I'm still waiting for that explanation.

>
> I'm pointing out that
> using a study in extreme contrasts to overlook our growing social and
> political crises,

No, Obama fixed everything. Remember? Hope and change, and all
that baloney? Thanks for admitting this country elected the least
qualified man to ever hold the top job in this country.

>
> is a favorite tactic of nationalists, revisionists,
> and apologists. We cannot improve unless we face what our problems
> exactly are.

We face what our problems are on a daily basis, unlike some of the
countries in the Middle East that you love so much (that you
defend them from my factual posts about them).

>
> It is not hating America to want to see it improve, nor
> live up to its legal promise to all its citizens of equality, justice,
> democracy, and it had had most of its history not affirm that it had for
> minorities.

But it's been over 50 years since that was remedied, and there are
many adults of minority status who never experienced Jim Crow laws
or any of the other injustices that have been corrected. Isn't it
nice to live in a country that throws open its problems for all
the world to see, rather than cover them up the way some other
countries (especially some of those that you think are so
wonderful) do?

>
> Shutting out Arab Muslim refugees in a time of national fear
> hysteria and loathing of radical elements may be a popular "lynch mob"
> movement of sorts, but it is the antithesis of our Constitution.

Really? Where does the Constitution guarantee the rights of people
of other nationalities who reside outside our borders? Please
cite the text.

>
> Additionally, it is the antithesis of Christianity to not give shelter
> to those in dire need of help.

It's also the antithesis of Christianity to purposely bring
potential danger into one's home, and put one's family in danger.

>
> The Good Samaritan principle is being
> tossed to the wayside in favor of transitory fears and hatred, racism
> and religious bigotry.

No, it's about the real potential of bringing new terrorists
right into our country. Just in case you want to ignore this in
the other thread, I'll repost it here:

Headline: "America's enemies within: How nearly SEVENTY have
been arrested in America over ISIS plots in the last 18 months
including refugees who had been given safe haven but 'turned to
terror'"

"Federal and local law enforcement agencies have made dozens
of arrests of men and women suspected of ISIS involvement"

"Analysis shows that they include refugees who entered the
United States as refugees"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

>
> It's happened many times before. And with each
> crisis, it's always had a sizable horde of supporters like yourself. You
> should be fucking ashamed of yourself for jumping on this foolish
> bandwagon.

Only one of us will need to be ashamed of himself after the first
terrorist attack that will come from one (or more) of these
refugees, or their children after they grow up like the Boston
Marathon bombers who were brought here as children, and grew up
to become terrorists from within. But go ahead and ignore that and
call me names if it soothes your guilty conscience.

>
> But, no, you're just a fucking fool, junior, an extremist
> yourself, and paranoid as hell.

Am I paranoid about the real incidents described in that article
I posted above? Or are you an idiot for ignoring it?

>
> >>>> That would alone give them significant advantage in
> >>>> staying safe and secure.
> >>>
> >>> I have to say, I like the way you're saying our society is just
> >>> better than theirs. This is real progress.
> >>
> >> Well, it wouldn't take much of a "civilized" society in most places on
> >> Earth that would be as dangerous to live in as the war-torn Syria and
> >> Iraq are. They're in an extreme situation that U.S. hegemony has helped
> >> create,
> >
> > Explain how we helped create it in Syria. Though, as I explained
> > elsewhere, I do understand how Obama helped create it in Iraq.
>
> Overall, the dogged pursuit of domination of governments in that region,
> both we and they tied together in an unholy alliance to make great
> profit and expand power, have coerced or forced their peoples into
> untenable social and political conditions.

Is that specifically about Syria? If so, explain how it pertains
to Syria specifically.

>
> And it started long, long ago
> with the carving up of Arab tribal lands,

We didn't do that.

>
> and since 1953's Iran
> government overthrow by the CIA,

That wasn't our idea, either. But we went along with it because
the Soviets were courting that leader of Iran at the time. But we
probably would not have done that without being led into it by
our ally that wanted that regime change for their own reasons.

>
> it's been getting more involved and
> dangerous to them and even us. And since 9-11, it's exploded in scope
> and impact.

Osama bin Laden was upset that U.S. troops were on the soil of
Saudi Arabia after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Our troops were
there at the request of the Saudi King, so how was that our fault
for bringing 9/11 on ourselves? Please explain.

>
> >> so I believe it our social responsibility to give them
> >> sanctuary.
> >
> > Sanctuary? In a country with all those mass shootings you
> > mentioned just above? Sheesh, we've got to be the worst place
> > for those people, putting their lives in danger just by living
> > here. Yet you insist that they come. Seriously, what is wrong
> > with you?
> >>
> >> And it's a crying shame we won't allow many more in.
> >
> > You want to put as many as you can in danger then?
>
> Knock off the tired ol' running sarcasm, junior. I've fully explained my
> position,

It still doesn't make any sense.

>
> but it is your restrictive paranoid xenophobic Islamaphobic
> mindset that should be your concern. It's the antithesis of both our
> Constitution

No, it's not.

>
> and your religion's precepts.

Not if there's a real threat of danger, which you have already
acknowledged elsewhere that there is.

>
> Have you no respect for the
> constitutional rights of all people here,

The Syrian refugees that aren't here do not have our
constitution's rights.
>
> or even any self-respect???

Not sure why you'd say that. I'm not the one who is unhappy to
live in my own country. That would be you.

>
> >>>> And the rest of the answer is in this article:
> >>>>
> >>>> Guess Who's Helping Seattle Homeless Veterans? Syrian Refugees
> >>>
> >>> The VA will help homeless veterans, too. But it's good to know all
> >>> those Syrian refugees will be coming here to help our veterans.
> >>> What would we do without them?
> >>
> >> If they're not allowed in, as you desire, they won't be here at all to
> >> do anyone any good, will they?
> >
> > Maybe they will civilize us, so we can be more like the country
> > they left behind.
> >>
> >> We can throw out the "melting pot" boast, then.
> >
> > Uh, no, I've never said I'm against regular immigration. In fact,
> > I proclaim that I am pro-immigration. I've said many times that
> > I celebrate the immigrants I work with on a near daily basis. I
> > love the way immigrants love this country, whereas some of the
> > ungrateful people who were born here hate it.
>
> Oh yeah, as long as they're not from the Mideast strife-torn nations.

I've known (and in some cases worked with) Iranians who came here
in 1979. Obviously I have no problem with individual immigrants
who go through proper channels. In the current case, there is a
real danger that ISIS could infiltrate the refugees, and slip
some real terrorists into this country.
>
> Tragic, junior.

Yes, if a terrorist (or terrorists) comes into this country among
the refugees you so proudly want here, and murders some innocent
people, that will be tragic. And you'll be complicit in those
murders for having supported Obama's position -- which goes
against the majority opinion in this country, so who does that
make the extremist?

[manfromu.f.o.]

On 11/27/2015 1:55 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:55:16 AM UTC-8, angelagent wrote:
>> On 11/24/2015 10:13 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe they'll be victims of the increasing number of mass shooters.
>>>> We're up to around 420 incidents for the year thus far.
>>>
>>> Yet you want to force them to live in this horrible country. What
>>> is wrong with you, that you would bring those people to a country
>>> you'd rather not live in yourself?
>>
>> The infrastructure, social, political, and otherwise, are intact here,
>> junior.
>
> Do you think that's just good luck, or what? And they just have
> bad luck? Oh, that's right, you think we're the cause of their
> bad luck. I almost forgot that, because it's so ridiculous.

Don't be ridiculous. Was it just luck of any kind that the U.S.
government began to support proposals to bomb Assad as punishment for
sarin gas attacks that we've got no damning proof that he ordered? Was
it luck of any kind that we supported the original protests that led
directly to a civil war, and then led to arming and training the FSA
(which failed)?? Was it just luck that we've been dead set against Assad
immediately after the Arab Spring movement began as protests???
No luck, good or bad. Design, purpose, subterfuge was why our and our
allies were militarily or otherwise involved in one Arab nation after
another, supporting one side against the governments. And the end prize
is to have more favorable governments planted to produce the best
hegemonic harvest humanly possible, to keep oil and gas flowing reliably
to the West, to stabilize the region to ensure stability in oil and gas
acquisition. No luck involved. Hegemony in this case was planned to
produce the results favorable to fossil fuel investment and security
needs. When are we going to stop intervening and let their peoples
resolve their own conflicts?? EH? Well, it'll happen if we develop
alternative energies. But nothing motivational enough until then will do
it. As soon as we support one group over the other in internal
conflicts, that is the additional catalyst for terrorism against us and
our allies, and the end result is more death and destruction,
displacement of their peoples. And in the displacement, fears, distrust,
and loathing preventing acceptance of those fleeing the battle-torn
nations as worthy citizens here by patriotic pus-heads like yourself who
otherwise boast about how much they love immigrants.
:))~ lol~!

[Steven Douglas]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 3:32:44 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
> On 11/27/2015 1:55 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:55:16 AM UTC-8, angelagent wrote:
> >> On 11/24/2015 10:13 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Maybe they'll be victims of the increasing number of mass shooters.
> >>>> We're up to around 420 incidents for the year thus far.
> >>>
> >>> Yet you want to force them to live in this horrible country. What
> >>> is wrong with you, that you would bring those people to a country
> >>> you'd rather not live in yourself?
> >>
> >> The infrastructure, social, political, and otherwise, are intact here,
> >> junior.
> >
> > Do you think that's just good luck, or what? And they just have
> > bad luck? Oh, that's right, you think we're the cause of their
> > bad luck. I almost forgot that, because it's so ridiculous.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Was it just luck of any kind that the U.S.
> government began to support proposals to bomb Assad as punishment for
> sarin gas attacks that we've got no damning proof that he ordered?

You're talking about Obama. He's the guy who drew the red line
that was not to be crossed. Then it was crossed, and he did
nothing. That makes us look weak. That's what happens when one of
the major parties in this country nominates the least qualified
man they could find for the presidency, and the other party
nominated a weak candidate which allowed the least qualified man
to ever hold the top job to be elected.

>
> Was
> it luck of any kind that we supported the original protests that led
> directly to a civil war,

Oh that's right, you always support evil dictators when they are
threatened by unruly mobs of citizens who want their freedom. Of
course you always support evil dictators. It's what you do every
single time.

You know something, "Doc", if I ever do stop posting here it will
be because I can no longer stomach your complete moral confusion,
in which you will always support evil and want to crush liberty
every chance you get.

[Arc Michael]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 3:32:44 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:

> On 11/27/2015 1:55 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:55:16 AM UTC-8, angelagent wrote:
> >> On 11/24/2015 10:13 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Maybe they'll be victims of the increasing number of mass shooters.
> >>>> We're up to around 420 incidents for the year thus far.
> >>>
> >>> Yet you want to force them to live in this horrible country. What
> >>> is wrong with you, that you would bring those people to a country
> >>> you'd rather not live in yourself?
> >>
> >> The infrastructure, social, political, and otherwise, are intact here,
> >> junior.
> >
> > Do you think that's just good luck, or what? And they just have
> > bad luck? Oh, that's right, you think we're the cause of their
> > bad luck. I almost forgot that, because it's so ridiculous.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Was it just luck of any kind that the U.S.
> government began to support proposals to bomb Assad as punishment for
> sarin gas attacks that we've got no damning proof that he ordered? Was
> it luck of any kind that we supported the original protests that led
> directly to a civil war, and then led to arming and training the FSA
> (which failed)?? Was it just luck that we've been dead set against Assad

why do you think Carson and Carley and Donald are leading, because the establishment runs these idiot lie, war for ji joe fun in the sand wars. Or is it really for oil access to libtards can run their kittie porn vids, you know, like U?

[docufo]

The 'red line" was drawn with the Congress's vote, spurred by a large
majority who wanted to do NOTHING militarily in Syria to supposedly
lessen the people's suffering and death, nor punish big ol' bad Bashar.
The conservative-dominated House voted against any military aid. You and
your neocon apes just can't cope with it, can you? He's a dictator for
pushing the ACA, supposedly, and then when he asks the people and
congress for authorization for another entry into an internal war, he's
lacking "courage" and "decisiveness." LOL! And if getting into another
internal war becomes a long-running quagmire, and proves unpopular, he
can be criticized for being a "dictator" or "inept." Can't win for
losing, in your neocon lil' book, can he? No matter what he says or
does, it could've been done so much better by a Romney or McCain.
Growing up is hard to do, isn't it, junior?

LOL!

:))~~

[docufo]

I don't know of any video or movie players that run on fuel. Maybe yours
in the back of your sticky van do, with lil' gas engines' crankshafts
whirring away while you whack your tiny nuts off to diaper fetish porn.

:))~~

[Steven Douglas]

False. I won't call you a liar on this, because you've been misled
by Obama's lapdog media. But here is the truth:

[excerpt] And the people in Syria and the Assad regime should
know that the President means what he says when he set that
red line. And keep in mind, he is the one who laid down that
marker. [end excerpt]

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamas-blurry-red-line/

The president laid down that marker. Did you get that?

That excerpt above came directly from the White House, in a
conference call from a White House official to officials of
various governments around the world. Please don't tell me that
says anything other than what it says.

>
> spurred by a large
> majority who wanted to do NOTHING militarily in Syria to supposedly
> lessen the people's suffering and death, nor punish big ol' bad Bashar.

You wrote that as if you don't really think he's so bad. You
really do love and admire evil dictators, don't you? Why don't
you just admit it?

>
> The conservative-dominated House voted against any military aid.

The point I have made consistently, which you have ignored (as
usual), is that Obama should have never drawn that red line if he
didn't think he could back it up. His mistake was drawing the red
line in the first place. Will you ever pick up on this, or will
you continue to try to turn it upside down and make it about
something else (as you always do)?

[angelagent]

And which he changed his mind to allow the American public and congress
to approve or disprove. And that is because getting our military asses
interjected into foreign nation's civil wars has proven too often to be
the beginning of a prolonged war with no visible solution, and/or a
stimulant for terrorists. Either way or both, it is not the President
and his loved ones on the frontline, nor congresspeoples'. And after
three warring interventions of a larger scale, and at least three of a
smaller scale in that region, and ongoing, I think it was good that
Obama wanted the input from the people in what has turned into an
oligarchy or plutocracy, according to a growing number of prominent
personages, such as Carter.
Would that limited cruise missile attack thwarted Assad or whoever
ordered the civilian atrocities? Likely no. It'd been met with more
atrocities down the line in retaliation, which would then put us into a
familiar quagmire: do we keep responding with more and more force to
"teach him a lesson?" LOL! Our interventions haven't taught us a goddamn
good thing yet, so why believe it'll not go down the same worn path, a
path that has the common peoples suffering even more than they did under
an oppressive regime? It is up to them to oppose that regime, and it can
be done without foreign military intervention. We've seen it done in
Egypt and Tunisia.

>
> The president laid down that marker. Did you get that?

Are you upset that American people and Congress were consulted then?
And that their answer was NO MILITARY INTERVENTION. Did you get that?

>
> That excerpt above came directly from the White House, in a
> conference call from a White House official to officials of
> various governments around the world. Please don't tell me that
> says anything other than what it says.
>>
>> spurred by a large
>> majority who wanted to do NOTHING militarily in Syria to supposedly
>> lessen the people's suffering and death, nor punish big ol' bad Bashar.
>
> You wrote that as if you don't really think he's so bad. You
> really do love and admire evil dictators, don't you? Why don't
> you just admit it?

See, there you go OVERSTATING MY VIEWS as usual. Your intellectual
dishonesty, and your attempt to demonize your opponents to ostensibly
distract from and elevate your extremism.

>>
>> The conservative-dominated House voted against any military aid.
>
> The point I have made consistently, which you have ignored (as
> usual), is that Obama should have never drawn that red line if he
> didn't think he could back it up. His mistake was drawing the red
> line in the first place. Will you ever pick up on this, or will
> you continue to try to turn it upside down and make it about
> something else (as you always do)?
>

And his "mistake' if that is so important to recall, was corrected by
thoughtfully, democratically asking the people and their reps what they
wanted him to do.

What the hell is wrong with that? Well, for your biased partisan shit
garden, it's planting no "dictatorial" seeds that you and your rightist
hyenas can exploit to demonize him as a tyrant. Nothing juicy to slime
him with. So now the vote is ignored, and his changing his mind is a
horrid thing. Asking the people and congress what they wanted is just so
terribly undemocratic of him. LOL! You sad shit sack.

:)~

[Steven Douglas]

Oh, you're changing your story now, are you? Look how easily you
just plod along, without acknowledging you were wrong. Hypocrite.

>
> to allow the American public and congress
> to approve or disprove. And that is because getting our military asses
> interjected into foreign nation's civil wars has proven too often to be
> the beginning of a prolonged war with no visible solution, and/or a
> stimulant for terrorists.

Then the complete amateur novice who found himself in the top job
in this country should have never drawn that red line if he didn't

think he could back it up.
>

> Either way or both, it is not the President
> and his loved ones on the frontline, nor congresspeoples'.

Actually, there are and have been some congress people who have
kids in the military.

>
> And after
> three warring interventions of a larger scale, and at least three of a
> smaller scale in that region, and ongoing, I think it was good that
> Obama wanted the input from the people

Then he should have had the input of the people before drawing the
red line, which wound up making him (and by extension, our nation)
weak by not backing his big words with action. We are a paper
tiger because of this inept president.

>
> in what has turned into an
> oligarchy or plutocracy, according to a growing number of prominent
> personages, such as Carter.
> Would that limited cruise missile attack thwarted Assad or whoever
> ordered the civilian atrocities? Likely no.

Then why did he draw the red line if he had no intention of
backing it up?

<snip your further excuse-making blather>

[manfromu.f.o.]

On 11/29/2015 10:33 AM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 3:19:03 AM UTC-8, angelagent wrote:
>> On 11/28/2015 6:18 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 4:06:33 PM UTC-8, docufo wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2015 12:26 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 3:32:44 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 1:55 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:55:16 AM UTC-8, angelagent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/24/2015 10:13 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe they'll be victims of the increasing number of mass shooters.
>>>>>>>>>> We're up to around 420 incidents for the year thus far.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet you want to force them to live in this horrible country. What
>>>>>>>>> is wrong with you, that you would bring those people to a country
>>>>>>>>> you'd rather not live in yourself?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The infrastructure, social, political, and otherwise, are intact here,
>>>>>>>> junior.
>>>>>>>

> Oh, you're changing your story now, are you? Look how easily you
> just plod along, without acknowledging you were wrong. Hypocrite.

No, I've not changed my mind. You charged him with not going ahead after
the "red line" he laid down. Your obfuscatory reiteration of that action
is what I'm mocking. I feel he did the democratic fair thing: ask
congress and the people what they wanted him to do. Your party and the
people said no to military intervention.
And that is more than satisfactory to me.
:))~

[Steven Douglas]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:53:41 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
> On 11/29/2015 10:33 AM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 3:19:03 AM UTC-8, angelagent wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2015 6:18 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 4:06:33 PM UTC-8, docufo wrote:
> >>>> On 11/28/2015 12:26 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 3:32:44 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/27/2015 1:55 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:55:16 AM UTC-8, angelagent wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/24/2015 10:13 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, manfromu.f.o. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe they'll be victims of the increasing number of mass shooters.
> >>>>>>>>>> We're up to around 420 incidents for the year thus far.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yet you want to force them to live in this horrible country. What
> >>>>>>>>> is wrong with you, that you would bring those people to a country
> >>>>>>>>> you'd rather not live in yourself?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The infrastructure, social, political, and otherwise, are intact here,
> >>>>>>>> junior.
> >>>>>>>
> > Oh, you're changing your story now, are you? Look how easily you
> > just plod along, without acknowledging you were wrong. Hypocrite.
>
> No, I've not changed my mind. You charged him with not going ahead after
> the "red line" he laid down.

No, I've charged him with laying down the stupid red line in the
first place, and I've made this point countless times and you've
dishonestly continued to ignore it again and again. Why don't you
take my actual arguments and argue against those, rather than try
to reframe my arguments into something that is more convenient for
you?