Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:29 pm**

I need to have an argument supported, here: In history, point out times when a group with "convert or die" in their religious code has moved in to another country, and tell us how that host country was made better by their presence.

The Spanish (specifically the Dominicans) converting damn near the entirety of the Americas by the sword. The faith is immaterial, it was just attached to the conquistadors, but it's why everyone down there speaks a Romance dialect instead of some descendant of Incan or Mayan language and the colonizers were the ones that brought modern tech down there.

This was the basis of our foreign policy for 50 years after WW2, keep a lid on shit.

Fuck that noise, I'm tired of paying for it.

You will notice a distinct upward trend since then because we have insisted on footing the most expensive bill possible at every opportunity. You'll also notice that entitlements started climbing post WWII and again after Korea and again during 'Nam and again after the first Gulf War. Need I go on? Check how the interest payments and infrastructure are getting squeezed out. The basis of our foreign policy for that 50 years wasn't economically feasible.

Edited By Malcolm on 1444243192

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:45 pm**

I don't think we necessarily disagree on the subject, at least not by a lot. I just think Gordon and I are far more concerned with the extremists than you are.

On the whole I concur with this summary statement.

Can extremists make a mess of things if they try hard enough? Sure, on a localized basis. Can they take over? Not a chance in hell until they massively outnumber us. And that would take many generations, by which time the kids no longer care to make a mess of things because they just want to listen to Taylor Swift and watch Twilight.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:52 pm**

TPRJones wrote:Can extremists make a mess of things if they try hard enough? Sure, on a localized basis. Can they take over? Not a chance in hell until they massively outnumber us. And that would take many generations, by which time the kids no longer care to make a mess of things because they just want to listen to Taylor Swift and watch Twilight.

And we are left with the old question: How many killings/how much crime committed by refugees are acceptable?

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:56 pm**

Acceptable? None of course. But then turning our backs on the innocent refugees in need is equally unacceptable.

There are no answers here that don't involve someone doing something unacceptable. The only question is will we be better people than they are or not?

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:03 pm**

And we are left with the old question: How many killings/how much crime committed by refugees are acceptable?

I'll answer that when they outstrip the domestic crime rate. If we're specifically talking the worst case of trigger-happy jihadists, when the Bloods and Crips start ceding turf to them, I'll begin to worry.

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:05 pm**

My highest priority is my family's safety. I would use my MIL as a bullet shield to protect my son in a heartbeat. As such, I would support tougher immigration protocols... hell, I'd even be happy if the current immigration laws were followed. I'm pretty easy like that.

As for taking in Syrian refugees, as I have heard Obama is considering, yeah, fine, take them in. And then send them back when the shooting is over. And immediately deport every single one convicted of any felony. Or is all of that too racist?

Posted: **Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:13 pm**

And then send them back when the shooting is over. And immediately deport every single one convicted of any felony. Or is all of that too racist?

I say we exercise the deportation option if they're inciting direct rebellion or guilty of violent crime within 10-20 years of moving over. Some felonies are still bullshit, namely 99% of drug possession laws on the books. Killers, thieves, and rapists? Ship 'em back if we're convinced they aren't potentially worse out of our sight. I've got a thing about sending back violent people with a vendetta to a country full of dudes that make a living off exploiting such situations.

Edited By Malcolm on 1444248904

Posted: **Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:38 am**

This guy claims that small towns in Germany of 400 people are being required to house 1000+ immigrants. When residents complain they will be swarmed under, are called xenophobes. He cites references bu I didn't click on them.

http://moonbattery.com/?p=64188

Edited By GORDON on 1446587906

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:58 pm**

This animated map is why I'm not going to Europe any more for vacations.

http://www.takepart.com/article....ally-is

Posted: **Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:40 pm**

[url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/reports-of- ... isis-14520
04203?mod=e2fb]An estimated 1,000 immigrants throw fireworks at people and sexually assault 90 or so women in Germany.[/url]

Posted: **Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:23 pm**

We haven't hit the threshold yet of "how many rapes is too many" so too bad for Europe.

Posted: **Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:10 pm**

I can only read the first paragraph, but damn.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:02 pm**

GORDON wrote:
TPRJones wrote:Can extremists make a mess of things if they try hard enough? Sure, on a localized basis. Can they take over? Not a chance in hell until they massively outnumber us. And that would take many generations, by which time the kids no longer care to make a mess of things because they just want to listen to Taylor Swift and watch Twilight.

And we are left with the old question: How many killings/how much crime committed by refugees are acceptable?

Apparently Sweden's Immigration department (whatever) is covering up crimes committed by their refugees.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive....-up.php

So... if the "elites" keep pushing for more refugees, and a growing population of "normal people" are getting hurt by it and are thinking that maybe enough is enough, is there an argument to be made that "the elites" have a vested interest in keep the "normal people" distracted, and are using an influx of refugees to do so?

Edited By GORDON on 1453320216

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:06 pm**

if the "elites" keep pushing for more <s>refugees</s> low-cost manual labour

Fixed.

Edited By Malcolm on 1453320417

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:07 pm**

Same question.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:13 pm**

The dudes near the top of society generally don't give a fuck what goes on elsewhere so long as they can keep their wealth and influence. They aren't the sort of folk running around in refugee circles.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:21 pm**

Malcolm wrote:The dudes near the top of society generally don't give a fuck what goes on elsewhere so long as they can keep their wealth and influence. They aren't the sort of folk running around in refugee circles.

There's an argument to be made though that what keeps the plebes in line here in America are food stamps, HUD apartments with air conditioning, and welfare that can be spent on xboxes and flat screens. WIthout those things we'd have a lot more bored young men on the streets engaging in mischief. Also giving the plebes immigration issues to deal with keeps the attention off of our betters.

So same thing, except Europe, and in higher percentages. People are a lot less likely to be out in the streets grumbling when there's a decent chance of getting attacked by a mob of young men from syria.

I don't know.

Burn it all.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:26 pm**

There's an argument to be made though that what keeps the plebes in line here in America are food stamps, HUD apartments with air conditioning, and welfare that can be spent on xboxes and flat screens.

That's not what everyone wants. That'll weed out the lazy and unambitious. Some rabble-rousers are quieted neither by bread nor circuses.

Secondly, if your theory is that figurative opiates and luxury placate the populous by giving them things to fill empty time, then one should be able to just as easily fill that void with necessity rather than desire and get the same results. People wouldn't be bored out on the streets if they had to till their own soil and sew their own clothes.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:29 pm**

Malcolm wrote:Secondly, if your theory is that figurative opiates and luxury placate the populous by giving them things to fill empty time, then one should be able to just as easily fill that void with necessity rather than desire and get the same results. People wouldn't be bored out on the streets if they had to till their own soil and sew their own clothes.

I think the great majority of people would sit in the street and starve to death if they were actually forced to take care of themselves. Those who didn't would just resort to crime until they got shot. Either way, social upheaval... which is not good for business.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:51 pm**

I think the great majority of people would sit in the street and starve to death if they were actually forced to take care of themselves. Those who didn't would just resort to crime until they got shot. Either way, social upheaval... which is not good for business.

That's why god invented religion.

Welcome to Thunderdome

Brit fails history