Christie: Protecting us from orphan toddler terrorists....

Jackson_Fusion said:

Accusing them of being racists or xenophobes or of grandstanding is just deplorable. There are perfectly defensible and moral reasons for being opposed to resettlement. 

What are Christie's moral and defensible reasons for, "I don't think orphans under five are being, you know, should be admitted into the United States at this point"?

tjohn said:

And a lot of it has to do with racism, xenophobia and the closing act of 500 years of white, male, Christian supremacy.

Aaaaannd scene! There we have it. What else is there to say?

It's clear this issue is being considered only on its merits. 

Good lord.

Jackson_Fusion said:


And you didn't answer the question. Is opposition to refugee resettlement always based on racism, xenophobia, and short term political considerations? Given the fact that terrorists (dozens, according to ABC) beat the screening process in the last few years, how can that be so?

Probably not. You have to add fear. Racism, xenophobia, short-term political considerations and fear.

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dave23, so is your position that you're willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees? Again, a morally and logically defensible position- but it sounds like you view the contra position, that one could be unwilling to do so to help refugees, can ONLY be driven by politics and racism. 

How can that be? 

I think you've lost any standing to call anyone out, such as the Star Ledger, for ugly rhetoric.

Cite specifics or strike your tent, sir. My pointing out political hackery masquerading as compassion does not count.

And you didn't answer the question. Is opposition to refugee resettlement always based on racism, xenophobia, and short term political considerations? Given the fact that terrorists (dozens, according to ABC) beat the screening process in the last few years, how can that be so?

The specifics? Read your own words: "so is your position that you're willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees." Am I wrong in thinking that you are a better and smarter person than what those deliberately oversimple and ugly words represent?

JF - when Ted Cruz makes statements about only allowing Christian refugees in, how do you describe that?    When Trump calls for closing of all mosques, how do you describe that?

Do you think these are unrelated to fear and prejudice?

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dave23, so is your position that you're willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees? Again, a morally and logically defensible position- but it sounds like you view the contra position, that one could be unwilling to do so to help refugees, can ONLY be driven by politics and racism. 

How can that be? 

I think you've lost any standing to call anyone out, such as the Star Ledger, for ugly rhetoric.

Cite specifics or strike your tent, sir. My pointing out political hackery masquerading as compassion does not count.

And you didn't answer the question. Is opposition to refugee resettlement always based on racism, xenophobia, and short term political considerations? Given the fact that terrorists (dozens, according to ABC) beat the screening process in the last few years, how can that be so?

The specifics? Read your own words: "so is your position that you're willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees." Am I wrong in thinking that you are a better and smarter person than what those deliberately oversimple and ugly words represent?

Dave, if you would take a breath for a minute and read what I said, repeatedly- those words represent a perfectly morally and logically defensible position. They are not "ugly". They are honest and forthright. 

If you believe that the risk of letting terrorists in who could potentially do some harm is outweighed by giving comfort to displaced people, SAY SO. Any reasonable person may disagree, and disagree vehemently, with your view, but it's a honestly held view, arrived at after weighing the pros and cons as you see them. It is not intrinsically evil, or driven by evil intentions.

However, that does not seem to extend to people who hold the opposite view- they are called racists, or xenophobes, or, just a few posts ago, manifestations of the end of white supremacy.

The issue is being viewed, by some, in a fully reactionary way, based on how favored politicians are lining up, and the beliefs about the hearts of those politicians. Not on the merits.

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Accusing them of being racists or xenophobes or of grandstanding is just deplorable. There are perfectly defensible and moral reasons for being opposed to resettlement. 

What are Christie's moral and defensible reasons for, "I don't think orphans under five are being, you know, should be admitted into the United States at this point"?

There are no moral or defensible reasons for any governor to decide he or she is closing the door to Syrian refugees in their state.  This is not a state issue, since our state borders are completely open.  

If any of these loud-mouth governors have a substantive contribution that makes screening of refugees safer, let them make it.  Otherwise, they are doing nothing other than pandering to our worst instincts. They are certainly doing nothing to make anyone safer.  

It's disgusting.

I'll just butt in with....

I know where Chris Christie is going to go, because the bible tells me so....

See Matthew 25: 34-46, including:

...He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I imagine y'all just love mixing religion and politics ... (where's that sarcasm emoticon?)

I'm leaving now....carry on.

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dave23, so is your position that you're willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees? Again, a morally and logically defensible position- but it sounds like you view the contra position, that one could be unwilling to do so to help refugees, can ONLY be driven by politics and racism. 

How can that be? 

I think you've lost any standing to call anyone out, such as the Star Ledger, for ugly rhetoric.

Cite specifics or strike your tent, sir. My pointing out political hackery masquerading as compassion does not count.

And you didn't answer the question. Is opposition to refugee resettlement always based on racism, xenophobia, and short term political considerations? Given the fact that terrorists (dozens, according to ABC) beat the screening process in the last few years, how can that be so?

The specifics? Read your own words: "so is your position that you're willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees." Am I wrong in thinking that you are a better and smarter person than what those deliberately oversimple and ugly words represent?

Dave, if you would take a breath for a minute and read what I said, repeatedly- those words represent a perfectly morally and logically defensible position. They are not "ugly". They are honest and forthright. 

If you believe that the risk of letting terrorists in who could potentially do some harm is outweighed by giving comfort to displaced people, SAY SO. Any reasonable person may disagree, and disagree vehemently, with your view, but it's a honestly held view, arrived at after weighing the pros and cons as you see them. It is not intrinsically evil, or driven by evil intentions.

Thanks for tempering your language a bit, but "willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees" is pretty nasty and I was responding to that. It's similar to me saying something like, you/Christie are willing to let thousands of refugees die from violence and neglect to avoid the remote possibility one of them maybe growing up to be a terrorist. It's an honest and forthright position, after all.

mjh said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Accusing them of being racists or xenophobes or of grandstanding is just deplorable. There are perfectly defensible and moral reasons for being opposed to resettlement. 

What are Christie's moral and defensible reasons for, "I don't think orphans under five are being, you know, should be admitted into the United States at this point"?

There are no moral or defensible reasons for any governor to decide he or she is closing the door to Syrian refugees in their state.  This is not a state issue, since our state borders are completely open.  

If any of these loud-mouth governors have a substantive contribution that makes screening of refugees safer, let them make it.  Otherwise, they are doing nothing other than pandering to our worst instincts. They are certainly doing nothing to make anyone safer.  

It's disgusting.

Without delving into the federalism issue- are you arguing that, by virtue their office, the governors of 31 states don't have a right to express a view on that topic? You sure about that one? 

"Dozens" of terrorists made it in through refugee resettlement over the last 5 years. Don't take that up with me, take it up with ABC. If a governor were to establish that, based on their concern of terrorists putting the people they serve in danger, they should act to the best of their ability to limit that danger, that is "disgusting" and indefensible?

Really? Why?

I'm glad Christie's Presidential campaign has totally bombed.  I didn't have the energy to explain how poorly he has done as Governor to my non-NJ friends.

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dave23, so is your position that you're willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees? Again, a morally and logically defensible position- but it sounds like you view the contra position, that one could be unwilling to do so to help refugees, can ONLY be driven by politics and racism. 

How can that be? 

I think you've lost any standing to call anyone out, such as the Star Ledger, for ugly rhetoric.

Cite specifics or strike your tent, sir. My pointing out political hackery masquerading as compassion does not count.

And you didn't answer the question. Is opposition to refugee resettlement always based on racism, xenophobia, and short term political considerations? Given the fact that terrorists (dozens, according to ABC) beat the screening process in the last few years, how can that be so?

The specifics? Read your own words: "so is your position that you're willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees." Am I wrong in thinking that you are a better and smarter person than what those deliberately oversimple and ugly words represent?

Dave, if you would take a breath for a minute and read what I said, repeatedly- those words represent a perfectly morally and logically defensible position. They are not "ugly". They are honest and forthright. 

If you believe that the risk of letting terrorists in who could potentially do some harm is outweighed by giving comfort to displaced people, SAY SO. Any reasonable person may disagree, and disagree vehemently, with your view, but it's a honestly held view, arrived at after weighing the pros and cons as you see them. It is not intrinsically evil, or driven by evil intentions.

Thanks for tempering your language a bit, but "willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees" is pretty nasty and I was responding to that. It's similar to me saying something like, you/Christie are willing to let thousands of refugees die from violence and neglect to avoid the remote possibility one of them maybe growing up to be a terrorist. It's an honest and forthright position, after all.

I didn't temper my language. You just realized that your position laid out plainly is not an attack. 

Your second statement is a bit histrionic and fact challenged- but it's a point from which debate may flow- unlike the show stopper "they're all racist and xenophobic". 

Jackson_Fusion said:

I didn't temper my language. You just realized that your position laid out plainly is not an attack. 

Your second statement is a bit histrionic and fact challenged- but it's a point from which debate may flow- unlike the show stopper "they're all racist and xenophobic". 

You did temper your language, but it's ok if you don't realize that.

Do show me where I wrote "they're all racist and xenophobic".

Jackson_Fusion said:

mjh said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Accusing them of being racists or xenophobes or of grandstanding is just deplorable. There are perfectly defensible and moral reasons for being opposed to resettlement. 

What are Christie's moral and defensible reasons for, "I don't think orphans under five are being, you know, should be admitted into the United States at this point"?

There are no moral or defensible reasons for any governor to decide he or she is closing the door to Syrian refugees in their state.  This is not a state issue, since our state borders are completely open.  

If any of these loud-mouth governors have a substantive contribution that makes screening of refugees safer, let them make it.  Otherwise, they are doing nothing other than pandering to our worst instincts. They are certainly doing nothing to make anyone safer.  

It's disgusting.

Without delving into the federalism issue- are you arguing that, by virtue their office, the governors of 31 states don't have a right to express a view on that topic? You sure about that one? 

"Dozens" of terrorists made it in through refugee resettlement over the last 5 years. Don't take that up with me, take it up with ABC. If a governor were to establish that, based on their concern of terrorists putting the people they serve in danger, they should act to the best of their ability to limit that danger, that is "disgusting" and indefensible?

Really? Why?

I didn't say they couldn't express their views.  Read it again.  

Jackson_Fusion said:

Aaaaannd scene! There we have it. What else is there to say?

I thought it was Eeeeeend scene.

To be a conservative in this country you have to believe that George W. Bush was strong and kept us safe because terrorists attacked us here on our soil, but Barack Obama is weak because terrorists attacked France.

Dave, I was contrasting what you just said in that post (the histrionic one) versus other arguments (bad intent, evil guy, immoral, indefensible). I didn't say you own both. Steady, man. I'm not, and have not, attacking you personally.

mjh said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

mjh said:

dave23 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Accusing them of being racists or xenophobes or of grandstanding is just deplorable. There are perfectly defensible and moral reasons for being opposed to resettlement. 

What are Christie's moral and defensible reasons for, "I don't think orphans under five are being, you know, should be admitted into the United States at this point"?

There are no moral or defensible reasons for any governor to decide he or she is closing the door to Syrian refugees in their state.  This is not a state issue, since our state borders are completely open.  

If any of these loud-mouth governors have a substantive contribution that makes screening of refugees safer, let them make it.  Otherwise, they are doing nothing other than pandering to our worst instincts. They are certainly doing nothing to make anyone safer.  

It's disgusting.

Without delving into the federalism issue- are you arguing that, by virtue their office, the governors of 31 states don't have a right to express a view on that topic? You sure about that one? 

"Dozens" of terrorists made it in through refugee resettlement over the last 5 years. Don't take that up with me, take it up with ABC. If a governor were to establish that, based on their concern of terrorists putting the people they serve in danger, they should act to the best of their ability to limit that danger, that is "disgusting" and indefensible?

Really? Why?

I didn't say they couldn't express their views.  Read it again.  

Must I? And I just cleaned my shoes!

You said their reasons were indefensible and immoral, and if their "loud mouths" were just pandering to our worst instincts. 

So what, you're encouraging them to keep contributing to the conversation? Pro tip- questioning people's morality and suggesting their views are "indefensible" doesn't encourage debate or discussion. Suggesting they appeal to the "worst instincts" (which instincts exactly? You didn't say) doesn't either.

Finally, ffof- it's "and scene" when I've heard it used, but I could be convinced otherwise- though end scene does make sense too.

Yes, it was designed to be histrionic. That was the point. Saying that I'm "willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees" is an attack, no matter how cleverly you thought you disguised it.

Getting to the crux of the matter: Yes, I think we should let Syrian refugees into the country. How many? I don't know. Yes, there should be very careful screenings. Will it be perfect? No. Is there risk? Like everything else in life, there is. But turning away these people fleeing violence because... well, there are bad people in their neighborhood, is cowardly and un-American.

We have a history of spectacular integration and deep xenophobia. I'd argue that just about every society is xenophobic, to a degree. It seems to be a standard human trait. But we are aware of it and can consciously act to overcome it. Americans are historically opposed to migrants (Jews, Mexicans, etc.) yet in they come. And they have made our country better. I don't think Syrians hold any special terrorist gene that makes them particularly susceptible to strapping on an exploding vest in the name of Allah. Not any more than Germans are innately susceptible toward wanting to exterminate Jews.

You threw a bit of a fit over the notion that Christie is exploiting our innate xenophobia and fear of the unknown. Well, I'm afraid that that is exactly what he and other Republicans are doing. Imagine how drab and un-dynamic our country would be if we let momentary popular emotional opinion guide our decisions whether to accept or deny those looking to build a better life in our country.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dave, I was contrasting what you just said in that post (the histrionic one) versus other arguments (bad intent, evil guy, immoral, indefensible). I didn't say you own both. Steady, man. I'm not, and have not, attacking you personally.

dave23 said:

Yes, it was designed to be histrionic. That was the point. Saying that I'm "willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees" is an attack, no matter how cleverly you thought you disguised it.

Getting to the crux of the matter: Yes, I think we should let Syrian refugees into the country. How many? I don't know. Yes, there should be very careful screenings. Will it be perfect? No. Is there risk? Like everything else in life, there is. But turning away these people fleeing violence because... well, there are bad people in their neighborhood, is cowardly and un-American.

We have a history of spectacular integration and deep xenophobia. I'd argue that just about every society is xenophobic, to a degree. It seems to be a standard human trait. But we are aware of it and can consciously act to overcome it. Americans are historically opposed to migrants (Jews, Mexicans, etc.) yet in they come. And they have made our country better. I don't think Syrians hold any special terrorist gene that makes them particularly susceptible to strapping on an exploding vest in the name of Allah. Not any more than Germans are innately susceptible toward wanting to exterminate Jews.

You threw a bit of a fit over the notion that Christie is exploiting our innate xenophobia and fear of the unknown. Well, I'm afraid that that is exactly what he and other Republicans are doing. Imagine how drab and un-dynamic our country would be if we let momentary popular emotional opinion guide our decisions whether to accept or deny those looking to build a better life in our country.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dave, I was contrasting what you just said in that post (the histrionic one) versus other arguments (bad intent, evil guy, immoral, indefensible). I didn't say you own both. Steady, man. I'm not, and have not, attacking you personally.

Dude.  It couldn't have been more obvious if you wrote it on a post it note, tacked it to a sledge hammer, and applied it to my forehead. Even for its histrionics it would be an acceptable (if uncompelling and overwrought) argument. That is the point. That was your intent. It's ok. I get it. We're good.

I hardly can see how my characterizing your position as "willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees" was a cleverly disguised plot to subvert your position, since you offered THE EXACT SAME SENTIMENT as your view a paragraph later. Were you a bit more florid? Sure! But show me where I mischaracterized your view. 

If my brevity in conveying your belief is somehow to be taken as an insult, clear sentiments simply stated are best in my opinion.  If you doubt my forthrightness, maybe my calling it, repeatedly, a defensible view, morally and logically, will salve your wounded honor.

Now- as I've been more than fair to you, claiming I threw "a bit of a fit" over Christie is just obnoxious. You're not offering any arguments here except again and again and again insisting that the only reason anyone could oppose refugee settlement is exploitation of xenophobia.

The perfect closer? Germans and Syrians are not innately susceptible to baser impulses... But conservatives? Oh yeah, xenophobes by nature, to the core. There is no other explanation. There cannot be. Great stuff!

We have a fine tradition of being anti-immigrant in this country under the best of circumstances - anti-Irish, anti-Italian, etc., etc.

As far as Christie is concerned, he would sell his own wife into sexual slavery for political advantage and he is well-aware that, as was the case with the Ebola scare, he is stoking peoples fears and latent xenophobia for political advantage.

Jackson_Fusion said:

tjohn said:

And a lot of it has to do with racism, xenophobia and the closing act of 500 years of white, male, Christian supremacy.

Aaaaannd scene! There we have it. What else is there to say?

It's clear this issue is being considered only on its merits. 

Good lord.

tjohn said:



As far as Christie is concerned, he would sell his own wife into sexual slavery for political advantage and he is well-aware that, as was the case with the Ebola scare, he is stoking peoples fears and latent xenophobia for political advantage.

Can you imagine the totally justified roar of indignation and disgust that would erupt if someone said that about Obama or Clinton's family? 

Can you even imagine?

I get it. There is no opposition that isn't rooted in evil intent. 

I would suggest, as an interlocutor of yours on other contentious issues, that you might want to step back and think about how much your feelings about the chubby gov is coloring your view of the issue.

I think @Jackson_Fusion has a point about the dangers of judging people's motivations/intent, and about too-broad of categorizations. So let's try this:

When Chris Christie (specific! Not "conservatives" or "republicans) says he's opposed to admitting any refugees, even "orphans under age 5," that position cowardly and xenophobic. I don't know why he is taking that position, have no insight into his psyche, but it is cowardly (we should be scared of children?) and prejudiced (what rationale is there for denying such a child refuge, apart from his religion and national origin?).

When Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz say that we should only allow in Christian refugees, that position is one of religious prejudice.

When governors (nearly all of whom are Republican, plus one Democrat) say they will not allow any Syrian refugees into their state, that position is legally indefensible and is unreasonable in evaluating the risks posed by refugees.

JF - would you agree with my evaluations of these specific individuals positions? If not, where do you disagree, and why?

ajc said:
Don't support Syrian Resettlement unless your members of Congress can first prove they can provide a strong refugee vetting program! The barbaric attacks against innocent people in Paris shock our collective conscience. Therefore, in the wake of these attacks perpetrated by ISIS, we need to make sure our elected officials call for a moratorium on Syrian refugee resettlement. Currently there are insufficient security measures that may enable terrorists to infiltrate the refugee resettlement program. Elected officials must demand restrictions on resettlement funding on the basis of national origin and religious beliefs. Such proposals are fundamental to protect American citizens at home and abroad....

Unless new information has come forward since I last checked the news, the attacks in Paris were NOT perpetrated by Syrian refugees.  They were the acts of European Union born citizens, more specifically French and Belgian citizens. There is a theory that the FAKE passport found was purposely planted in an effort to make the western world suspicious of the refugees so we would turn them away.  Obviously this ploy is working.

So in other words the terrorists could have easily gotten tourist visas.

Easy, let in the refugees but cancel all tourism...

Christie has a track record of tailoring his views for maximum political advantage even if that means flip-flopping on a weekly basis.  It wasn't that long ago that he was saying we should take Syrian refugees.

Jackson_Fusion said:

tjohn said:



As far as Christie is concerned, he would sell his own wife into sexual slavery for political advantage and he is well-aware that, as was the case with the Ebola scare, he is stoking peoples fears and latent xenophobia for political advantage.

Can you imagine the totally justified roar of indignation and disgust that would erupt if someone said that about Obama or Clinton's family? 

Can you even imagine?

I get it. There is no opposition that isn't rooted in evil intent. 

I would suggest, as an interlocutor of yours on other contentious issues, that you might want to step back and think about how much your feelings about the chubby gov is coloring your view of the issue.

Okay, I'll be the one to defuse it. Sincere question: What are your thoughts and opinions on what should be done? 

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave23 said:

Yes, it was designed to be histrionic. That was the point. Saying that I'm "willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees" is an attack, no matter how cleverly you thought you disguised it.

Getting to the crux of the matter: Yes, I think we should let Syrian refugees into the country. How many? I don't know. Yes, there should be very careful screenings. Will it be perfect? No. Is there risk? Like everything else in life, there is. But turning away these people fleeing violence because... well, there are bad people in their neighborhood, is cowardly and un-American.

We have a history of spectacular integration and deep xenophobia. I'd argue that just about every society is xenophobic, to a degree. It seems to be a standard human trait. But we are aware of it and can consciously act to overcome it. Americans are historically opposed to migrants (Jews, Mexicans, etc.) yet in they come. And they have made our country better. I don't think Syrians hold any special terrorist gene that makes them particularly susceptible to strapping on an exploding vest in the name of Allah. Not any more than Germans are innately susceptible toward wanting to exterminate Jews.

You threw a bit of a fit over the notion that Christie is exploiting our innate xenophobia and fear of the unknown. Well, I'm afraid that that is exactly what he and other Republicans are doing. Imagine how drab and un-dynamic our country would be if we let momentary popular emotional opinion guide our decisions whether to accept or deny those looking to build a better life in our country.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dave, I was contrasting what you just said in that post (the histrionic one) versus other arguments (bad intent, evil guy, immoral, indefensible). I didn't say you own both. Steady, man. I'm not, and have not, attacking you personally.

Dude.  It couldn't have been more obvious if you wrote it on a post it note, tacked it to a sledge hammer, and applied it to my forehead. Even for its histrionics it would be an acceptable (if uncompelling and overwrought) argument. That is the point. That was your intent. It's ok. I get it. We're good.

I hardly can see how my characterizing your position as "willing to let terrorists into the country to help refugees" was a cleverly disguised plot to subvert your position, since you offered THE EXACT SAME SENTIMENT as your view a paragraph later. Were you a bit more florid? Sure! But show me where I mischaracterized your view. 

If my brevity in conveying your belief is somehow to be taken as an insult, clear sentiments simply stated are best in my opinion.  If you doubt my forthrightness, maybe my calling it, repeatedly, a defensible view, morally and logically, will salve your wounded honor.

Now- as I've been more than fair to you, claiming I threw "a bit of a fit" over Christie is just obnoxious. You're not offering any arguments here except again and again and again insisting that the only reason anyone could oppose refugee settlement is exploitation of xenophobia.

The perfect closer? Germans and Syrians are not innately susceptible to baser impulses... But conservatives? Oh yeah, xenophobes by nature, to the core. There is no other explanation. There cannot be. Great stuff!

 

This 

Can the ABC segment get posted here, please?

ajc said:
Don't support Syrian Resettlement unless your members of Congress can first prove they can provide a strong refugee vetting program! 

Done! It already exists.