World Are fear and ignorance driving our politics?

[Lamb]

As with so many, you are forgetting that he said it should be a TEMPORARY restriction until we have a way of knowing who the terrorists are among them. You are also forgetting that no foreign person has an automatic right to enter our country regardless of who they are.

Besides, I didn't realize you wanted to bring a BILLION more aliens into the USA?

You're right. Our laws were brought forth because of need. If we had an influx of a billion aliens, what would happen to our land, our resources, our economy? We have specific structures in place for a reason and bypassing those laws that already exist becomes a problem. I'm not against any temporary mandates because we are dealing with a small group of enemy who don't respect mankind (the terrorists, not all Muslims) so we need to be on guard if we want to work this through intelligently.

 

[psalms 91]

You're right. Our laws were brought forth because of need. If we had an influx of a billion aliens, what would happen to our land, our resources, our economy? We have specific structures in place for a reason and bypassing those laws that already exist becomes a problem. I'm not against any temporary mandates because we are dealing with a small group of enemy who don't respect mankind (the terrorists, not all Muslims) so we need to be on guard if we want to work this through intelligently.

Absolutely

 

[tango]

As with so many, you are forgetting that he said it should be a TEMPORARY restriction until we have a way of knowing who the terrorists are among them. You are also forgetting that no foreign person has an automatic right to enter our country regardless of who they are.

Besides, I didn't realize you wanted to bring a BILLION more aliens into the USA?

Here's a radical idea for you. How about you address what I'm actually saying instead of making up silly strawmen?

It's obviously absurd to bring a billion new people into the USA in one hit. No country can quadruple its population overnight without major issues. So let's not be making silly comments putting words in my mouth, huh?

Temporary restrictions are all well and good in theory but why stop at young men with brown skin and beards and towels on their heads? Why not also impose restrictions on young men with brown skin and beards and Hispanic accents, because they might be working for a Colombian drug cartel. Or maybe the apparently mild-mannered professional from Western Europe is really looking to do business with some really shady people, perhaps buying and selling children for exploitation? Best keep them all out, you know, to be safe. Hey, it's only temporary.

Since you've got a profile icon showing you're a man perhaps we should keep you out as well. You know, rapists are overwhelmingly men and if you want to restrict vast numbers of people based on the actions of a few you can't be too safe. Don't worry about it, it's only temporary. Think of how much safer women might feel, knowing there's one less potential rapist on the streets.

If all the above sounds silly, it's because it is. It's just as silly as assuming that all Muslims are terrorists because a few are known to have been.

 

[tango]

In order to combat fear and ignorance, how about a few hard numbers:

According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.

In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380.

(source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/)

On the other hand...

2,458 deaths due to anaphylaxis and additional 593 deaths due to fatal allergic reactions were identified over the twelve-year period, for a combined prevalence of 0.86 deaths due to anaphylaxis per million people in the United States. These results indicate that the US has one of the highest prevalences of fatal anaphylaxis in the world. A few other interesting findings emerged from this analysis:

(source: http://www.aaaai.org/global/latest-research-summaries/Current-JACI-Research/fatal-anaphylaxis.aspx - the 12-year period is 1999 to 2010)

So in a 12 year period 3,030 people died in the US from acts of terrorism. In a comparable period 3,051 people died in the US due to anaphylaxis and fatal allergic reactions. Perhaps we should spend trillions of dollars fighting a War On Peanuts.

Since we're talking about deaths in the low hundreds per year, let's look at a far bigger killer, our roads. In 2013 there were slightly over 30,000 fatalities on the roads (source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx). So to put things in a bit of perspective, the number of people killed in the 9-11 attacks is broadly comparable to the number of people who die every month on our roads. The only difference is that attacks on the scale of 9-11 are vanishingly rare, while deaths on the roads are depressingly common.

Nobody thinks twice about getting behind the wheel of their car yet people panic if they are going to be in close proximity to a young man with brown skin and a beard. This is despite the fact that being killed in a road traffic accident is far more likely than being killed by a terrorist.

But hey, why let the numbers get in the way of a bit of paranoia?

 

[Highlander]

Here's a radical idea for you. How about you address what I'm actually saying instead of making up silly strawmen?

It's obviously absurd to bring a billion new people into the USA in one hit. No country can quadruple its population overnight without major issues. So let's not be making silly comments putting words in my mouth, huh?

Temporary restrictions are all well and good in theory but why stop at young men with brown skin and beards and towels on their heads? Why not also impose restrictions on young men with brown skin and beards and Hispanic accents, because they might be working for a Colombian drug cartel. Or maybe the apparently mild-mannered professional from Western Europe is really looking to do business with some really shady people, perhaps buying and selling children for exploitation? Best keep them all out, you know, to be safe. Hey, it's only temporary.

Since you've got a profile icon showing you're a man perhaps we should keep you out as well. You know, rapists are overwhelmingly men and if you want to restrict vast numbers of people based on the actions of a few you can't be too safe. Don't worry about it, it's only temporary. Think of how much safer women might feel, knowing there's one less potential rapist on the streets.

If all the above sounds silly, it's because it is. It's just as silly as assuming that all Muslims are terrorists because a few are known to have been.

Sorry, but you are being silly in purposefully making the false assumption that Trump hates Muslims. He is trying to protect American lives -- something that silly thinking like yours has made almost impossible. It is your crazy mindset that currently infests the white house and is why American citizens have never been in greater danger.

Regarding your other silly statements, why would you want to ban people because they have beards, accents, Hispanics, etc.? I would expect someone like you to usher Hispanics in through our southern border and help them become good, voting Democrats. LOL

Getting back to your other silly comments -- I would be most willing to allow all Muslims into our nation if they could only be located in ONE state AND if that state could be populated ONLY with liberals like you. Best to lose people like you to terrorist attacks -- who are partially responsible for the terrorist deaths in America -- than to lose innocent Americans who understand the war that we are involved in.

Keep on smokin' it, my friend. It's probably the only thing that keeps you sane. And that has to be a full-time job.

 

[tango]

Sorry, but you are being silly in purposefully making the false assumption that Trump hates Muslims. He is trying to protect American lives -- something that silly thinking like yours has made almost impossible. It is your crazy mindset that currently infests the white house and is why American citizens have never been in greater danger.

Regarding your other silly statements, why would you want to ban people because they have beards, accents, Hispanics, etc.? I would expect someone like you to usher Hispanics in through our southern border and help them become good, voting Democrats. LOL

Getting back to your other silly comments -- I would be most willing to allow all Muslims into our nation if they could only be located in ONE state AND if that state could be populated ONLY with liberals like you. Best to lose people like you to terrorist attacks -- who are partially responsible for the terrorist deaths in America -- than to lose innocent Americans who understand the war that we are involved in.

Keep on smokin' it, my friend. It's probably the only thing that keeps you sane. And that has to be a full-time job.

Care to address my points without resorting to insults? If you can't do any better than constantly calling me silly without actually addressing my points it doesn't say much for your position, does it?

And just so you know, I'm not a liberal. I just don't have anything against Muslims as a people - I don't see how it helps anybody to define a billion people based on the actions of a few. It's the same reason I don't regard Christians as a bunch of nutjobs despite the antics of Fred Phelps and his clan.

 

[JPPT1974]

Fred Phelps is anything BUT a Christian and will leave it at that. The way he goes with preaching hate.

 

[tango]

Fred Phelps is anything BUT a Christian and will leave it at that. The way he goes with preaching hate.

... which is pretty much my point. We don't write off a billion Christians because of Fred Phelps and his church, but somehow writing off a billion Muslims because a few of them blow things up is different.

Essentially, a few bad examples don't define the vast majority.

 

[Highlander]

Care to address my points without resorting to insults? If you can't do any better than constantly calling me silly without actually addressing my points it doesn't say much for your position, does it?

And just so you know, I'm not a liberal. I just don't have anything against Muslims as a people - I don't see how it helps anybody to define a billion people based on the actions of a few. It's the same reason I don't regard Christians as a bunch of nutjobs despite the antics of Fred Phelps and his clan.

What points have you made, besides none at all? I'm very sorry, tango, but you are acting like a liberal when you insist on bringing in people who will cause the deaths of innocent Americans.

And you are being very silly in pretending that we are defining a billion people as terrorists. Everyone knows that the great majority of them are peace loving people. But that does not mean we are inebriated, as you are, with the idea that it is okay to kill a few innocent Americans just to prove that you are not prejudiced.

It is your type of thinking that killed almost 3,000 people on 9/11. And it is your kind of thinking that is causing us to lose the war on terror. In this regard, you are absolutely no different than Obama, who is the worst abomination of a president that the USA has ever had.

You are really off the rails, my friend, and have no way of recognizing it.

 

[tango]

What points have you made, besides none at all? I'm very sorry, tango, but you are acting like a liberal when you insist on bringing in people who will cause the deaths of innocent Americans.

And you are being very silly in pretending that we are defining a billion people as terrorists. Everyone knows that the great majority of them are peace loving people. But that does not mean we are inebriated, as you are, with the idea that it is okay to kill a few innocent Americans just to prove that you are not prejudiced.

Of course, every single Muslim is a bloodthirsty terrorist, how silly of me to forget. Except the ones that aren't, of course. Like the Muslim who runs the hardware store up the road from where I used to live. He managed to sell me all sorts of innocent items but sadly forgot he was supposed to kill me. Or the Muslim neighbors I had who invited me into their house when I locked myself out of my own, and made me a cup of tea. They didn't even have the basic decency to behead me while I was there. Or the Muslims I worked with for years who managed to attend an office in the capital city of the little Satan and forgot to blow us all up while they were there.

How silly of me to overlook the fact that all Muslims are terrorists despite the inconvenient fact that it's just not true. But hey, you keep taking your information from Fox News, or wherever it is you're getting it from, because your description of Muslims as an amorphous mass doesn't seem to align too well with reality. The fact they largely have brown skin and beards (the men at least, Muslim women don't grow beards any more than any other woman) doesn't change the fact that there are differences between Muslims just as there are differences between Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Pastafarians and Zoroastrians and, well, you probably get the idea.

Hey, since it's obviously so important to make sure nobody is exposed to any threat at all, maybe we should stop men from entering the country? You know, we couldn't be having American women facing an increased risk of rape just to prove we weren't sexist as a nation could we? What about Christians? They might be the type to blow up abortion clinics or indoctrinate young minds against the creeping advance of secularism. Best keep those dodgy types out. Let's just close the borders while we're at it, you know, just to be safe.

Did you look over the statistics I posted? You're more likely to be killed in a car crash than killed by a terrorist. Shall we take all the cars off the roads? Better safe than sorry, right? What was the thread topic again? Oh yes, fear and ignorance. How very appropriate.

It is your type of thinking that killed almost 3,000 people on 9/11. And it is your kind of thinking that is causing us to lose the war on terror. In this regard, you are absolutely no different than Obama, who is the worst abomination of a president that the USA has ever had.

You are really off the rails, my friend, and have no way of recognizing it.

Really? I had no idea I had any responsibility for the actions of a couple of dozen men. Was I responsible for Columbine and for Timothy McVeigh as well? I never knew a bit of free thinking could cause such chaos. Maybe I should go turn myself in to the nearest police station. But wait, Columbine wasn't caused by Muslims and Timothy McVeigh - wasn't he a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, all-American boy? Say, maybe terrorism is more complex than rounding up young men with brown skin and beards. Whoda thunkit?

It's good to know I'm no different to Obama. Except for my skin color, my political outlook, my economic outlook, well, quite a few things actually. He's the same gender and the same species which, given your tendency to lump as many people as you can into an amorphous mass, probably does count as me being "just like him". But hey, you're a male human as well so maybe you're just like him too? Bet you never saw that one coming, eh?

If I'm so far off the rails you could always put forward a suggestion as to how to protect a country from threats without taking to extreme measures. You know, like how to determine who is dangerous with a little more sophisticated methodology than "brown skin and beard bad, white skin and no beard good". Otherwise what happens when a radicalised Western Muslim with white skin shaves off his beard to trick immigration and does something drastic? But hey, he doesn't have brown skin, or a beard, or a towel on his head, so he must be OK, right?

 

[psalms 91]

And if you drive there are many rules concerning it to help save lives. If banning Muslims from entering until all the holes in our entrance procedure are fixed then that is prusdent

 

[Highlander]

And if you drive there are many rules concerning it to help save lives. If banning Muslims from entering until all the holes in our entrance procedure are fixed then that is prusdent

Good point. The idea is to only ban them until a way is found to weed out the terrorists that hide among the vast majority of good, peaceful Muslims.

After that is accomplished, then the rest would be welcome to move here and become Americans.

 

[Highlander]

Of course, every single Muslim is a bloodthirsty terrorist, how silly of me to forget.

Of course, there bloodthirsty terrorist Muslims -- hiding among the good Muslims to sneak in -- that intend YOU and I nothing but death. How silly of you to forget that also.

Come to think of it, you are just plain silly. :spam:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Fear & ignorance driving your posts! Those sneaky terrorists! imaging arriving by an arduous journey rather than being home grown (like so many recent terrorists have been) or flying in on a comfortable jet (like nearly all of the foreign terrorists did).

 

[tango]

Of course, there bloodthirsty terrorist Muslims -- hiding among the good Muslims to sneak in -- that intend YOU and I nothing but death. How silly of you to forget that also.

Did I ever dispute that?

I don't suppose you considered that there are also people who want to cause harm who aren't Muslims? You know, like Colombian drug barons, like sex traffickers and the like. But hey, let's keep fear and ignorance alive and only focus on one group of people. While we're fussing about young men with brown skin and beards we can hope the others leave us alone.

Come to think of it, you are just plain silly. :spam:

Let's stop with the personal jabs. Address the points rather than the individual.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Fear & Ignorance driving our politics is not confined to terrorism and terrorists as bogey men/women. We had it for a time in Europe with Jews being a vast conspiracy of wealthy and powerful people driving nations into wars and bankruptcy for some nefarious purpose or other. Some Muslims still see Jews that way. There's also an alleged conspiracy of men and women to discredit famous people with allegations of sexual misconduct that happened decades ago. Or the Government conspiracy to bring down the twin towers. We have fear & ignorance at all sorts of levels of improbability ranging from absurd conspiracy theories to slightly credible stories about refugees being in infiltration route for Islamic State terrorists. There's also the fear & ignorance that makes either Democrats or Republicans into tools[SUP]*[/SUP] to achieve the enslavement of some part of the population.

It is not too arduous a task to inform one's self about the specifics of a particular topic that's being used to drive our politics. Google can help, using credible sources of information (such as encyclopaedias, university peer reviewed papers and so forth) is a very useful and powerful tool for uncovering the hidden dangers in "fear & ignorance" claims from political advertising and conspiracy theory books and web pages.


[SUP]*[/SUP] either of Unions & Communists or Big Business and the super rich.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Will you make your choice about who to vote for based on what you fear?

 

[tango]

Fear & Ignorance driving our politics is not confined to terrorism and terrorists as bogey men/women. We had it for a time in Europe with Jews being a vast conspiracy of wealthy and powerful people driving nations into wars and bankruptcy for some nefarious purpose or other. Some Muslims still see Jews that way. There's also an alleged conspiracy of men and women to discredit famous people with allegations of sexual misconduct that happened decades ago. Or the Government conspiracy to bring down the twin towers. We have fear & ignorance at all sorts of levels of improbability ranging from absurd conspiracy theories to slightly credible stories about refugees being in infiltration route for Islamic State terrorists. There's also the fear & ignorance that makes either Democrats or Republicans into tools[SUP]*[/SUP] to achieve the enslavement of some part of the population.

It is not too arduous a task to inform one's self about the specifics of a particular topic that's being used to drive our politics. Google can help, using credible sources of information (such as encyclopaedias, university peer reviewed papers and so forth) is a very useful and powerful tool for uncovering the hidden dangers in "fear & ignorance" claims from political advertising and conspiracy theory books and web pages.


[SUP]*[/SUP] either of Unions & Communists or Big Business and the super rich.

Very true, in the UK at least the two bogeymen are terrorists and paedophiles. For a time it got to a point where the police were stopping and searching people under anti-terror legislation when all they had done was take pictures of tourist hotspots in London. Stop and take a tourist photo of the Houses of Parliament? That's not good sir, best check you out. And some of the whining that took place over the thought someone might take a picture of a child was remarkable.

I often figure it's good to look at who might benefit from particular politics, but thinking things through with a view to determine who will really benefit rather than who the politician proposing it says will benefit. Many times it seems policies have an effect pretty much the exact opposite of the (stated) intended effect, which leads me to wonder whether politicians are malicious or incompetent. (That probably sounds like it's somewhere on the scale of the conspiracy theory lark you mentioned)

The trouble is so many people seem to do little more than tune into their chosen source of media to find out what they are supposed to be angry about today.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Very true, in the UK at least the two bogeymen are terrorists and paedophiles. For a time it got to a point where the police were stopping and searching people under anti-terror legislation when all they had done was take pictures of tourist hotspots in London. Stop and take a tourist photo of the Houses of Parliament? That's not good sir, best check you out. And some of the whining that took place over the thought someone might take a picture of a child was remarkable.

I often figure it's good to look at who might benefit from particular politics, but thinking things through with a view to determine who will really benefit rather than who the politician proposing it says will benefit. Many times it seems policies have an effect pretty much the exact opposite of the (stated) intended effect, which leads me to wonder whether politicians are malicious or incompetent. (That probably sounds like it's somewhere on the scale of the conspiracy theory lark you mentioned)

The trouble is so many people seem to do little more than tune into their chosen source of media to find out what they are supposed to be angry about today.

In the USA - and I use the USA because we receive so much news coverage of their elections lately - Donald Trump has very effectively used fears to gain votes. He's been so effective at it that he looks like he will become the Republican presidential candidate despite his obvious unsuitability for high office of any kind. Fear is a mighty tool in unscrupulous hands.

 

[tango]

In the USA - and I use the USA because we receive so much news coverage of their elections lately - Donald Trump has very effectively used fears to gain votes. He's been so effective at it that he looks like he will become the Republican presidential candidate despite his obvious unsuitability for high office of any kind. Fear is a mighty tool in unscrupulous hands.

That does seem to be the case, although I think Trump is also riding high on a wave of anger.

When Middle America sees their income stagnating as the cost of living rises, when the notion that each generation is wealthier than the one before it starts to fade away, when job security is a thing of the past, and when presidential candidates appear to be sold to the highest bidder, it's easy to see why people are drawn to a guy who at least talks a good game regarding getting incumbents out, and who is wealthy enough that he doesn't need to take money from anyone.

When it seems to people (with at least some justification) that the system is badly broken and things that are supposed to fix it just end up making things worse, they will vote for someone promising something extreme. The trouble is from where we are now, economically speaking, there is no way out without causing huge financial pain to large numbers of people. It's hard to see things working out very well for savers, since borrowers are a majority and the government is a huge borrower. When the government has debts in excess of $17,000,000,000,000 they have an obvious vested interest in keeping interest rates as low as possible and devaluing the currency. Too bad for the people trying to make ends meet, trying to save a deposit on a house, trying to put money by for a rainy day.