What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Are you for or against taking in Syrian refugees? (1 Viewer)

Are you for/against taking in refugees?

  • For

    Votes: 247 52.0%
  • Against

    Votes: 228 48.0%

  • Total voters
    475
Anyone voting 'for' willing to open their home and take in and care for a few?
I don't have room, but I'm more than willing to pay a little more in taxes to help them find shelter and I have no problem if the shelter they find is near my home. That good enough for you?

 
Icon even if you were right and we really couldn't afford it, I'd still say take them in. We'll find a way. During the first few decades of Israel's existence they took in every Jewish refugee that could get there, even though the cost was enormous and there wasn't nearly enough food or resources to go around. Their population doubled, then doubled again, then quadrupled. But somehow they found room and eventually prospered.

We're a greater nation than Israel, which only took in Jews. We take in everybody. That's what defines us. It's what makes us the greatest nation in the history of human civilization bar none. It's what justifies our existence, what allows us to consider ourselves moral despite our history of slavery and racism, our extermination of indigenous peoples, our acts of imperialism around the world. All of those things are awful but they don't define us because of our willingness to take in the people nobody else wants. That's why we are the good guys. We give that up and our whole reason for being a nation is meaningless.

 
I think I'd be more open to having Syrian refugees at my house than the typical American family. The former is more likely to be appreciative than the latter.

 
Sure send them to California, Colorado, New York and other states that want them.
:shrug:

This seems like the best plan/compromise.

1) Identify communities that want them

2) Identify from those, the communities that can afford them so we don't fail them like we did the majority of iraqi refugees that we took in, but are not struggling in abject poverty with no way to get home.

3) Send them there.

Voila. Everyone wins. :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's just look at the city I live in:

U.S. Conference of Mayors’ new report: 46% of the requests for emergency food assistance in Tennessee’s largest city—almost half—were being unmet. Food pantries in Memphis are overwhelmed with requests, and according to the report, they are having a hard time “securing funds to purchase the food needed to meet the need.” Unemployment, low wages and poverty were cited as the main causes of hunger in Memphis, where the official unemployment rate is 7.5% and 26.2% of its residents are living below the poverty line. The Conference of Mayors noted that in 2015, “city officials expect requests for food assistance to increase moderately and resources to provide food assistance to decrease moderately.”
Huh... so we have HALF as much food as we need... 75% of the jobs we need.... and funds are DECREASING? BRING ON MOAR PEOPLES! ESPECIALLY the kind that will require EXTRA resources incorporate due to screening, education, and other factors!

Sometimes you have to defer to your head before your heart gets you in real trouble.
Yes, people are starving in Memphis because we only have 1/2 as much food as we need.

 
I think I'd be more open to having Syrian refugees at my house than the typical American family. The former is more likely to be appreciative than the latter.
I have managed commercial shopping centers for over 25 years. Immigrants and refuges make the best tenants. American born (especially white people) make the worst. It's not even close.
 
Sure send them to California, Colorado, New York and other states that want them.
:shrug:

This seems like the best plan/compromise.

1) Identify communities that want them

2) Identify from those, the communities that can afford them so we don't fail them like we did the majority of iraqi refugees that we took in, but are not struggling in abject poverty with no way to get home.

3) Send them there.

Voila. Everyone wins. :thumbup:
Has anyone addressed how we are paying for these people's existence? I guess we better raise taxers to pay for it. All those in favor of refugees get their taxes raised. Those opposed do not. We'd see a ####load of you people changing your vote.

 
I think I'd be more open to having Syrian refugees at my house than the typical American family. The former is more likely to be appreciative than the latter.
I have managed commercial shopping centers for over 25 years. Immigrants and refuges make the best tenants. American born (especially white people) make the worst. It's not even close.
I am not the least bit surprised by this.
 
Sure send them to California, Colorado, New York and other states that want them.
I can't speak for my fellow Californians but personally I'm fine with this idea.
Great then there won't be a problem. You guys can handle 10K a year easily and that way everyone will be happy.

If they would actually send them where they are wanted then problem solved.

Too bad that is not what they will do.

 
Let's just look at the city I live in:

U.S. Conference of Mayors’ new report: 46% of the requests for emergency food assistance in Tennessee’s largest city—almost half—were being unmet. Food pantries in Memphis are overwhelmed with requests, and according to the report, they are having a hard time “securing funds to purchase the food needed to meet the need.” Unemployment, low wages and poverty were cited as the main causes of hunger in Memphis, where the official unemployment rate is 7.5% and 26.2% of its residents are living below the poverty line. The Conference of Mayors noted that in 2015, “city officials expect requests for food assistance to increase moderately and resources to provide food assistance to decrease moderately.”
Huh... so we have HALF as much food as we need... 75% of the jobs we need.... and funds are DECREASING? BRING ON MOAR PEOPLES! ESPECIALLY the kind that will require EXTRA resources incorporate due to screening, education, and other factors!

Sometimes you have to defer to your head before your heart gets you in real trouble.
Is Memphis one of the cities where they're bringing in refugees?
Good point... no other cities are having that problem. Memphis is the only one. Plenty of food and jobs to go around. Carry on.
I was asking a simple question that I had no idea about - why you have to act like a child is beyond me.

It looks like part of the refugee acceptance process is doing an analysis on placement possibilities. I highly doubt they're going to be dumping refugees into cities willy-nilly where food closets (and other resources) are already stretched to the max.

I'll re-post MattFancy's link that had some insight to what goes on - http://www.vice.com/read/is-it-legal-for-the-governors-of-more-than-a-dozen-states-to-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees-116

 
I think I'd be more open to having Syrian refugees at my house than the typical American family. The former is more likely to be appreciative than the latter.
I have managed commercial shopping centers for over 25 years. Immigrants and refuges make the best tenants. American born (especially white people) make the worst. It's not even close.
care to purchase some property in Reading, Pa?

 
Sure send them to California, Colorado, New York and other states that want them.
:shrug:

This seems like the best plan/compromise.

1) Identify communities that want them

2) Identify from those, the communities that can afford them so we don't fail them like we did the majority of iraqi refugees that we took in, but are not struggling in abject poverty with no way to get home.

3) Send them there.

Voila. Everyone wins. :thumbup:
Has anyone addressed how we are paying for these people's existence? I guess we better raise taxers to pay for it. All those in favor of refugees get their taxes raised. Those opposed do not. We'd see a ####load of you people changing your vote.
No. There are things that are stupid to spend tax money on and there are things worthwhile. An attempt to spread civilization is the former. Simply being humanitarian is enough. The negative financial impact of this is negligible.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's just look at the city I live in:

U.S. Conference of Mayors new report: 46% of the requests for emergency food assistance in Tennessees largest cityalmost halfwere being unmet. Food pantries in Memphis are overwhelmed with requests, and according to the report, they are having a hard time securing funds to purchase the food needed to meet the need. Unemployment, low wages and poverty were cited as the main causes of hunger in Memphis, where the official unemployment rate is 7.5% and 26.2% of its residents are living below the poverty line. The Conference of Mayors noted that in 2015, city officials expect requests for food assistance to increase moderately and resources to provide food assistance to decrease moderately.
Huh... so we have HALF as much food as we need...
We do?
HTH
I've been driving across the country currently in Missouri, there is no food shortage here.
 
Sure send them to California, Colorado, New York and other states that want them.
I can't speak for my fellow Californians but personally I'm fine with this idea.
Great then there won't be a problem. You guys can handle 10K a year easily and that way everyone will be happy.

If they would actually send them where they are wanted then problem solved.

Too bad that is not what they will do.
Send them to Texas, then we can keep all the brown people together.

 
Set them up on the federal dole and move them all to Detroit. With any luck, the city will be rebuilt in the next decade.

 
Sure send them to California, Colorado, New York and other states that want them.
:shrug:

This seems like the best plan/compromise.

1) Identify communities that want them

2) Identify from those, the communities that can afford them so we don't fail them like we did the majority of iraqi refugees that we took in, but are not struggling in abject poverty with no way to get home.

3) Send them there.

Voila. Everyone wins. :thumbup:
Has anyone addressed how we are paying for these people's existence? I guess we better raise taxers to pay for it. All those in favor of refugees get their taxes raised. Those opposed do not. We'd see a ####load of you people changing your vote.
No. There are things that are stupid to spend tax money on and there are things worthwhile. An attempt to spread civilization is the former.Simply being humanitarian is enough.
So no matter the cost, just do it and don't worry about adding to the debt.

Of course, remember that I know the 18T debt is meaningless and adding to it is meaningless (I know we can just crank up a printing press and print off the ben franklins as needed.) but for those who go ballistic about the country's debt, this is the question they would like answered. Obviously we can afford it.

 
Let's just look at the city I live in:

U.S. Conference of Mayors new report: 46% of the requests for emergency food assistance in Tennessees largest cityalmost halfwere being unmet. Food pantries in Memphis are overwhelmed with requests, and according to the report, they are having a hard time securing funds to purchase the food needed to meet the need. Unemployment, low wages and poverty were cited as the main causes of hunger in Memphis, where the official unemployment rate is 7.5% and 26.2% of its residents are living below the poverty line. The Conference of Mayors noted that in 2015, city officials expect requests for food assistance to increase moderately and resources to provide food assistance to decrease moderately.
Huh... so we have HALF as much food as we need...
We do?
HTH
I've been driving across the country currently in Missouri, there is no food shortage here.
No food shortage for people with money here, either.

 
Let's just look at the city I live in:

U.S. Conference of Mayors new report: 46% of the requests for emergency food assistance in Tennessees largest cityalmost halfwere being unmet. Food pantries in Memphis are overwhelmed with requests, and according to the report, they are having a hard time securing funds to purchase the food needed to meet the need. Unemployment, low wages and poverty were cited as the main causes of hunger in Memphis, where the official unemployment rate is 7.5% and 26.2% of its residents are living below the poverty line. The Conference of Mayors noted that in 2015, city officials expect requests for food assistance to increase moderately and resources to provide food assistance to decrease moderately.
Huh... so we have HALF as much food as we need...
We do?
HTH
I've been driving across the country currently in Missouri, there is no food shortage here.
You knew that by observing how many fat people there are huh? My gawd, there are a ####load.

 
Sure send them to California, Colorado, New York and other states that want them.
:shrug:

This seems like the best plan/compromise.

1) Identify communities that want them

2) Identify from those, the communities that can afford them so we don't fail them like we did the majority of iraqi refugees that we took in, but are not struggling in abject poverty with no way to get home.

3) Send them there.

Voila. Everyone wins. :thumbup:
Has anyone addressed how we are paying for these people's existence? I guess we better raise taxers to pay for it. All those in favor of refugees get their taxes raised. Those opposed do not. We'd see a ####load of you people changing your vote.
No. There are things that are stupid to spend tax money on and there are things worthwhile. An attempt to spread civilization is the former.Simply being humanitarian is enough. The negative financial impact of this is negligible.
If it's so negligible than why is our current refugee program so underfunded and unable to meet the needs of the refugees we already have?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's just look at the city I live in:

U.S. Conference of Mayors new report: 46% of the requests for emergency food assistance in Tennessees largest cityalmost halfwere being unmet. Food pantries in Memphis are overwhelmed with requests, and according to the report, they are having a hard time securing funds to purchase the food needed to meet the need. Unemployment, low wages and poverty were cited as the main causes of hunger in Memphis, where the official unemployment rate is 7.5% and 26.2% of its residents are living below the poverty line. The Conference of Mayors noted that in 2015, city officials expect requests for food assistance to increase moderately and resources to provide food assistance to decrease moderately.
Huh... so we have HALF as much food as we need...
We do?
HTH
I've been driving across the country currently in Missouri, there is no food shortage here.
No food shortage for people with money here, either.
If this issue points out that we are in a "food shortage" then great let's address that and fix it. Plenty of money spent on ridiculous things in our budget to shift a feeding people.
 
I think I'd be more open to having Syrian refugees at my house than the typical American family. The former is more likely to be appreciative than the latter.
I have managed commercial shopping centers for over 25 years. Immigrants older and refuges republicans make the best tenants. American born Democrats (especially white people) make the worst. It's not even close.
Umm no.
Sorry, that's just what I've observed.

 
I think I'd be more open to having Syrian refugees at my house than the typical American family. The former is more likely to be appreciative than the latter.
I have managed commercial shopping centers for over 25 years. Immigrants older and refuges republicans make the best tenants. American born Democrats (especially white people) make the worst. It's not even close.
Umm no.
Sorry, that's just what I've observed.
Well to be fair to Tim, there probably aren't any old Republicans in California any more.
 
Sure send them to California, Colorado, New York and other states that want them.
:shrug:

This seems like the best plan/compromise.

1) Identify communities that want them

2) Identify from those, the communities that can afford them so we don't fail them like we did the majority of iraqi refugees that we took in, but are not struggling in abject poverty with no way to get home.

3) Send them there.

Voila. Everyone wins. :thumbup:
I would like to take a moment of personal privilege and address a matter completely beside the subject at hand. Thank you Icon for correctly spelling "voila". Countless times here I have endured reading folks post "Wala!". Of course those folks will likely not even correlate what they think the word is with the word you wrote, but maybe one or two of them will learn something from your correct usage and spelling.

 
Where do I sign up as a potential house for a refugee family to stay?
Don't worry, nobody is keeping score on who is the most compassionate.
Other than Muslims who might be recruited to join ISIS and are less likely do so so if they see acts of compassion by the West, you mean.
Bull#### claim that you have no idea if it's true or not.
Really? It's well-documented by virtually every expert (and by ISIS itself) that ISIS wants to bring about a holy war by casting the West as enemies of Islam. Anyone with a shred of common sense can deduce that admitting Muslim refugees makes it far more difficult to be cast as an enemy of Islam. Seems pretty ####ing obvious to me.

 
Nobody is bigger in LEGAL immigration than me. But you know ISIS is smart enough to smuggle some of their people in with this 10,000. In fact, they're probably laughing at us.
Im sure you are use to it.
Sometimes I play dumb only to fit into a group, play stupid. Then once I'm fully integrated I show my true colors and create dissent within the group. These Muslims are doing the same!
After seeing your videos, you must be a great actor. You are very convincing.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top