What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

More Terrorism in France, or Something else? (1 Viewer)

The white people are probably more likely to do it by manipulating the system, so there's that...
I think we should lock up anyone who's not Norwegian/German/Swiss/French or Dutch/Hungarian/Irish - American.

Then maybe my wife and I can get some alone time.

 
This is unequivocally true.

Come on guys, we're simply not going to kick people out or place them in an arbeitslager...err I mean internment camp...because of their race or creed.

Stop and think for a minute.
Thank you Andy. 

I get the emotion and anger and frustration that make people feel such solutions might be necessary. But we can't let thise feelings swamp us. We are better than that. 

 
IF we seriously discuss anything remotely close to internment camps then the America we want to protect won't exist anymore.  We are and must be better than that.  But changes to immigration?  I don't see anything unAmerican about that at all.  We can still be everything that the founding required us to be with an iron clad border and strict immigration rules.  Whether or not we should do that is a policy question, not a fabric of our being question.  To me.  I know some disagree.

 
I think we should lock up anyone who's not Norwegian/German/Swiss/French or Dutch/Hungarian/Irish - American.

Then maybe my wife and I can get some alone time.
Don't you live in Minnesota? How is locking up anyone who isn't white going to have any effect on you?

 
As far as what to do: as Slapdash mentioned last night, lost in all this was the news that yesterday the USA and Russia may have reached an agreement for cooperation in fighting ISIS in Syria. That's a rather big deal. 

 
IF we seriously discuss anything remotely close to internment camps then the America we want to protect won't exist anymore.  We are and must be better than that.  But changes to immigration?  I don't see anything unAmerican about that at all.  We can still be everything that the founding required us to be with an iron clad border and strict immigration rules.  Whether or not we should do that is a policy question, not a fabric of our being question.  To me.  I know some disagree.
I do disagree, but the issues raised (I think originally by Riversco last night and then defended by several others) were internment and mass deportation. Restricting immigration is also wrong IMO but not on the same level. 

 
Don't you live in Minnesota? How is locking up anyone who isn't white going to have any effect on you?
I was going to say that post IS the racial makeup of MN. 

Although we got a lot of Somolian Muslims here. Whole neighborhoods very close to downtown would be wide open for new condos!!!

 
I was going to say that post IS the racial makeup of MN. 

Although we got a lot of Somolian Muslims here. Whole neighborhoods very close to downtown would be wide open for new condos!!!
No, you misunderstand. They have to have that EXACT ethnic makeup. I expect my children of Norwegian/German/Swiss/French/Dutch/Hungarian/Irish-Americans to be world overlords someday.

Once they unify "their" people I mean.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, you misunderstand. They have to have that EXACT ethnic makeup. I expect my children of Norwegian/German/Swiss/French/Dutch/Hungarian/Irish-Americans to be world overlords someday.

Once they unify "their" people I mean.
The Hungarian part probably prevents you from a high position in the Fourth Reich. 

 
I do disagree, but the issues raised (I think originally by Riversco last night and then defended by several others) were internment and mass deportation. Restricting immigration is also wrong IMO but not on the same level. 
There is nothing wrong with restricting immigration.  The purpose of a state of any configuration is the adminitration, in however the people want that administration, of the country as a whole.  The logistics of administration include the movement of people.  There is a reason why citizenship is important.  There is a reason why there are rules about travel within a country such as speed limits, hazardous materials transport and the myriad of other rules and regulations that must be followed for travel.  Allowing free unfettered access to our systems and institutions creates administrative nightmares.  When you couple that with the very real problem of culture clashes and the inability of local areas to absorb influxes of people, the basic societal structure can get damaged.

There is nothing machiavelian nor evil about wanting a strong and protective immigration policy.  There is nothing racist or xenophobic about it.  It is the natural and necessary need of country.  We are dealing with immigration issues on our southwest border while at the same time lack of affordable housing issues in the northeast and many major cities.  The adminsitrative nightmare of large influxes of people into this country, from any area, puts a strain on resources.  If those same people fail to assimilate in some fashion into the society the problems get worse.  If they coalesce around their own people and form their own neighborhoods, the problem gets worse.  If they protect their own culture at the expense of working within our the problem gets worse.  And when you add the current world issues surrounding terroism, the natural reaction of any person, American, British, French, whatever, is to blowback and see "them" as a problem, and then the administration of it all gets even more problematic.

You can still be a good American and want a stronger tighter border.  You can still be a free thinker and want a focused immigration policy for this country.  You can still be proud of yourself because there isn't a xenophobic attack that anyone can level on you because you are ok with anyone here, and still also support a legal and clear administrative system to allow them to get here.  This isn't really rocket science.  On the spectrum of completely open border to completely shut off build a wall border I am exponentially closer to open than closed and probably agree with you specifically on much of your immigration positions you've taken here.  But there needs to be a system in place to deal with it.  It's not wrong to restrict immigration - it's policy and frankly it's smart policy if for nothing else to allow the administrative aspect of it to be codified and put in place so that the people that do come in don't crush any one system or institution, and to also allow the security apparatus of the country to ensure it didn't just allow a cancer into the system.    

 
Shamrock it's not a question of like or dislike. I honestly think deportation and/or internment of Muslims is unamerican. It's just wrong. 
So your attitude on this issue is instead of trying to find the correct solution, we need to focus on being politically correct & defining american vs unamerican actions. That attitude is a great way to get the public so fed up that they elect the first radical candidate they get.

 
Can't believe I am quoting GWB, but he nails it:

“Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”

 
[Obama]Clearly, this is the fault of white, racist, Christian, NRA member, police officers.[/Obama]
Clearly true. White western Christian powers have oppressed and killed Muslims for half a millenia. The nra has made weapons of death more available than books for those disillusioned with their unjust place in life to get. 

 
Sorry Yankee, I should have clarified- I meant that restricting immigration from Misdle Eastern countries as a reaction to terrorism is IMO wrong. 

 
Tim, we might be faced with 2 options here:

1.  a moderate candidate concedes that the current situation just doesn't work and has to deport people.

2.  no moderates step forward with anything that solves the problem, and a radical gets elected.  This radical goes WAY BEYOND deporting people and make a whole lot of ugly changes.

Those might actually be the only two options we get here.

 
So your attitude on this issue is instead of trying to find the correct solution, we need to focus on being politically correct & defining american vs unamerican actions. That attitude is a great way to get the public so fed up that they elect the first radical candidate they get.
I think we must do both. We need to find better solutions to this issue (I don't think there is one "correct" solution) and at the same time we need to remember who we are. 

 
Sorry Yankee, I should have clarified- I meant that restricting immigration from Misdle Eastern countries as a reaction to terrorism is IMO wrong. 
I disagree for pretty much the same reasons, my post was just Ameri-centric.  And I'm really beginning to wonder at this point if France isn't ready to explode into what amounts to a cultural civil war because of this.

 
The fight you are fighting Tim, avoiding deportation, might have already been lost at this point.  If you try that fight, you just get a radical like Le Pen next year.  If you concede the fight is lost and do some deportations, you don't get a Le Pen and can walk policy back later.  

 
I disagree for pretty much the same reasons, my post was just Ameri-centric.  And I'm really beginning to wonder at this point if France isn't ready to explode into what amounts to a cultural civil war because of this.
This is why we should not restrict immigration from Muslim Nations so we can join in this cultural civil war. 

 
Tim, we might be faced with 2 options here:

1.  a moderate candidate concedes that the current situation just doesn't work and has to deport people.

2.  no moderates step forward with anything that solves the problem, and a radical gets elected.  This radical goes WAY BEYOND deporting people and make a whole lot of ugly changes.

Those might actually be the only two options we get here.
I'm not sure what you're expecting from me. I will NEVER support mass deportations. I will NEVER support any candidate who promotes mass deportation. If Hillary Clinton came out for this tomorrow I would end my support for her a minute later. That's it. Period. 

 
I'm not sure what you're expecting from me. I will NEVER support mass deportations. I will NEVER support any candidate who promotes mass deportation. If Hillary Clinton came out for this tomorrow I would end my support for her a minute later. That's it. Period. 
So you'd be ok with helping someone get elected that supports not just mass deportations, but internment camps and scarlet letters before you'd give a little on the issue?  That just doesn't make sense to me.  

 
I don't want to deport anyone, nor am I smart enough to make those decisions.  But realistically, it may now be too late to prevent it.
Mass deportations are technically considered a cruel and inhuman crime against humanity in the UN charter.  The combination of northern Europe pushing back, Brexit, the moron that GOP is going to nominate here and the growing unrest in France is going to ultimately crush the UN on itself if this keep moving in that direction.  This is why after Brexit I posted about my concerns about NATO and to Hillary Clinton's credit last night she specifically talked about needing NATO to work together to deal with this "problem."

 
You could deport  but its a waste of time

If you want a sea change, you need to really get a core of what ideaology is forging this stuff.

Whats very disconcerting to me with the past handful of attacks and I'm including Orlando, is that these attackers had seemingly stable family lives and jobs.  That should be be purpose enough in this life.  I get how you get a 16 year old kid with no prospects and all the testosterone to do this stuff. 

I DO NOT get how you get men with families in their late 20s/30s on board. 

Someone, or more than one, is filling their heads with some pretty sweet nothings to get them to throw their existence away for such nonsense. 

Our focus needs to be breaking up or altering that message

 
So you'd be ok with helping someone get elected that supports not just mass deportations, but internment camps and scarlet letters before you'd give a little on the issue?  That just doesn't make sense to me.  
Say what? 

Not sure how I could be more clear about this...

 
[Obama]Clearly, this is the fault of white, racist, Christian, NRA member, police officers.[/Obama]
What is the point of posts like this? And others saying ban trucks or bringing up libs will try to make this about gungun control?

Do they serve any purpose?

 
To be clear.

Opposition to deportations (at this point) CAN lead to something MUCH worse.  Electing Le Pen.  You have to look a couple moves ahead.
I don't think so. 

But even if you're right, I don't care. Some things are beyond the pale for me. 

 
You could deport  but its a waste of time

If you want a sea change, you need to really get a core of what ideaology is forging this stuff.

Whats very disconcerting to me with the past handful of attacks and I'm including Orlando, is that these attackers had seemingly stable family lives and jobs.  That should be be purpose enough in this life.  I get how you get a 16 year old kid with no prospects and all the testosterone to do this stuff. 

I DO NOT get how you get men with families in their late 20s/30s on board. 

Someone, or more than one, is filling their heads with some pretty sweet nothings to get them to throw their existence away for such nonsense. 

Our focus needs to be breaking up or altering that message
Good post but impossible.  

 
So, accept deportations, because something worse might come?

No thanks.
No.

The options are:

1.  come up with a new solution that clearly shows results before Le Pen gets elected.

2.  Le Pen gets elected and we get deportations.

There it is.  Black and white.  

It may be too late to stop deportations.  The only option now might be to start deporting to appease Le Pen supporters before they elect him.  Because if you get Le Pen, you get more than just deportations.

Unless someone has some other idea that will work.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure what you're expecting from me. I will NEVER support mass deportations. I will NEVER support any candidate who promotes mass deportation. If Hillary Clinton came out for this tomorrow I would end my support for her a minute later. That's it. Period. 
And I supported it yesterday and I support it even more today. That was easy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top