Halloween Attack NYC

Yoda - it's kind of like the gun control argument - most calling for greater controls aren't claiming that it's going to end all gun violence, they know that's not the case. What they are saying is close up the gaps WHERE WE CAN to at least help limit, prevent or make it less easy for unscrupulous people to get their hands on guns. Of course it's realized that they can carry out violence in any number of ways that don't involve firearms, but the argument is we can tighten the chain by repairing some areas of broken links and maybe save a few more lives that might otherwise be lost if we allow gaps to remain.

I'm applying the same argument here. I said I realize there is no solution for terrorism, but we can do things to help prevent it.
This immigration lottery is analogous to terrorism like various loopholes are to gun violence. We don't need loopholes. Close them.

And much like the gun control debate, most of the arguments are about restrictions that wouldn't necessarily have stopped the attack in question, and are tellingly focused on people rather than policy.

There's a quote in The West Wing, from one of the few conservative characters allowed to be thoughtful or articulate, where they say something like "It's not that you don't like guns. It's that you don't like people who like guns." That's what it sounds like here. You care about terrorism as any feeling person would, but c'mon, anyone can see what gets you really fired up, and it ain't fighting terrorism. It's fighting people who you think aren't fighting terrorism. You guys aren't fighting a war, you're trying to execute deserters.

This is demonstrably not what you're doing. It's what you did for a few posts. And you'll notice I didn't take issue with any of them.

Then, as almost always happens after lip service is paid to terrorism itself, the focus shifts onto the real target: political correctness. I find that plenty disagreeable in its own right, but all I see in this reflexive pivot is the same kind of tactics applied to a different end, which I don't find to be much better.

I wish these things would stop. I am never going to believe that it has to be this way. To date: I have NEVER killed a person for ANY reason. And I have a lot of reasons (Ha!). When are we gonna stop killing each other? There has to be another way. All I see is talk, talk ,talk. and more violence. What does it take to change an entire planet's thinking? We just seem so set on a path of mental apathetic inevitability when dealing with these horrible incidents.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Well, sure. I have no problem admitting you've got me pegged... to a certain extent.

I'm not going to deny railing against political correctness. I'm proud to oppose the double standards, inequality and injustice this manipulative philosophy represents.

So, I'm not sure what your beef is with me this time. Yes, my complaints about PC are the same as they were in 2001 because the problem on the PC end hasn't changed.

Terrorism is the direct problem, PC is what helps keep the door open for it to keep occurring and what is constantly trying to distract people from the fact that it's holding the door open. PC is the enabler.

So of course I'm against the mindset people who rationalize terrorism, apply arguments of moral equivalency to it, deny it, want to appease it, try to misdirect the causes of it, tell us we should just accept it or who feel if we all ignore it long enough it will go away. I desire to open their eyes to reality - apologism, appeasement, and denial doesn't make terrorism go away, it only gives people a false sense of security, makes them more vulnerable, and less prepared when something does happen. Apathy in a world where terrorism exists is dangerous and irresponsible.

Granted I am far more against the terrorists themselves, but those who enable or embolden them with ill-thought-out policies, even when that is not their intention, bear some degree of accountability.

This case in particular is making many outraged because it is such a prime and obvious example of PC policies enabling and literally opening the door for terrorism.

You keep making the claim the pc brigade encourage terrorists coming in through the door. Does not compute. Even trump wants him necked as everyone does but guess what, lethal injection stopped being handed out in your state in 2007.

Hi Dani, how are you?

What exactly doesn't compute?

The "PC brigade" developed this immigration lottery program that enabled a terrorist to get in. This wasn't a conservative "let's protect our people when we've been told by terrorists that intend to utilize these types of immigration programs" program.

Immigration shouldn't be a game. Except for those who developed this program or who are deeply steeped in the PC camp, I haven't heard anyone NOT condemn it now that they are aware that such an irresponsible and dangerous program was put in place. Most people either can't believe this program existed or they are outraged that our government plays games that put our safety in jeopardy. It may be a lottery for immigrants, but for the American people it is a game of Russian Roulette.

I have no opinion on the fate of the terrorist - I'm happy to let the justice system follow its course however it is determined to be applied in this case. I really don't care whether they classify him as an enemy combatant or as a felon. I am very glad he was taken alive - I always am, because we can get a lot more information, contacts and connections from this individual than if he'd been killed.

Fine thnks cp. How are you you.

Bashing their tambourine about Sayfollo and how the lunatic is doing the work of ISIS says nothing about the pc drama llamas' power. They are not human rights advocates and never will be

https://travel.state.gov/content/vis...tructions.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

How do you know this? Who proposed the policy? Who opposed it? When was it enacted? How have you determined that the person in question wouldn't have gained entry anyway? And so on.

Would I be correct in assuming you have absolutely no idea what the answers to these questions are? If so, does that mean this claim is based on nothing more than the idea that it just sort of sounds like a politically correct thing, at first blush?

I heard on the news that Chuck Schumer was one of the people who proposed it. It was reported that several Republicans opposed it and the current administration opposes it and will try to get rid of it. Without looking it up, I think I read or heard it was enacted in the late 2000's.

There are lots of ways for a terrorist to gain entry.
As I said before we should be focused on closing those loopholes, limiting those means and working on improving both our immigration system and security as opposed to trying to increase "diversity" by allowing access to immigrants chosen at random and enabling potential terrorists to enter our country via lotteries.

It was enacted in 1990 as it says in the links I posted that apparently nobody read. I think you and Drumpf get your news from the same place.

He also ignored when I said this program does NOT give those that win it any special privilege to avoid the SAME security checking and vetting that every other normal immigrant goes through. So I dont get the carrying on and on about a "loophole" for terrorists. How is it that exactly? If its the same security process that all immigrants must go through to get in? The only difference again is that they dont need a sponsor and they get to skip the line.

And he also ignored the point that all evidence points to this guy being radicalized AFTER he got in. So how is this program responsible for that?

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

I said I wasn't going to look it up. I could have just cheated and looked every one of Yoda's questions up and provided answers... but I didn't. There's no appreciation for honesty here.

I did open your links last night, but only scanned them and did not read them.

(I didn't know there was going to be a pop quiz today that determines one's veracity based on a common-sense deduction they made upon hearing about "immigration lotteries" after one of the "winners" murdered 8 Americans... and deciding that such a thing is an all around bad idea!)

And, Mark... I never lie.

The entire idea of vetting terrorists is a joke!

A lot of terrorists had perfectly clean backgrounds before they became a terrorist.
A lot of "radicalized" individuals seemed perfectly normal before they became radicalized.
ISIS has already set operatives up with false names, backgrounds, records and documents - they may be insane murderers, but they're not stupid.
Vetting from countries where one guy can have two dozen names, ten different families and a dozen different sets of legal records?
Vetting from countries that are so war torn, demolished or underdeveloped that they don't even have records?

"Please check box if you are or intend to become a terrorist."
"Note: checking box may delay your visa application."

and if they had not yet "become a terrorist", then that means, logically, that they were NOT terrorists when they were vetted. So how can you blame this program at all for that?

Just for the record, Uzbekistan is none of those things, unless you count their last war which occurred in the early 16th century as an indication that they are "war torn". But if Im hearing you correctly, it sounds like your issue isnt with this program in particular (since you acknowledge that you cant vet out a terrorist if they havent been radicalized yet) but with the concept of ANYONE from ANY country that doesnt pass your smell test immigrating AT ALL into this country. Whether they have ties to terrorism or not. Or maybe its just that you are fully anti-immigrant across the board and this program provides a convenient scapegoat for attacking immigration. Or its that you mistrust muslims and the fact that this one single muslim individual was allowed into this country through this program and later carried out an attack gauls you to no end. Well If its any of those things then I think you should just own it and say that and not sit here and hurumph and carry on about this particular program that does none of the things youve declared it does. It makes absolutely no sense to condemn a program that brings in immigrants and ignore it when their radicalization occurs WITHIN our own country. Why arent you going on and on about the internet? Thats apparently what made him decide terrorism was the right choice to make. And YouTube for allowing all the terrorist videos that apparently inspired him toward murder. Why do act like this particular program is the only reason we have terrorist attacks in this country? And what about the radicalization of those born here? Theres been a lot more of those then there have been of individuals who have carried out terrorist attacks after coming to this country through the green card lottery program.

Not really.

It seems like "I heard it on the news" is a common refrain in these discussions. Not sure it's a great idea to form major parts of one's worldview (even arguing with people about them!) based on scattered, half-remembered news fragments, possibly not from particularly objective sources to begin with, that you then don't bother to verify.

Please go back and read the very first reply to this thread. You responded to it, but now you're saying things that make it sound like you didn't read it.

Agreed. In fact, it's not clear we can stop them at all, let alone that this one particular program was the difference between this one person entering or not. These facts clearly preclude you from drawing the kinds of conclusions you've been so eager to draw.

I agree with all that. What I don't agree with is the relatively unsupported claim that this attack is the result of political correctness. I don't think you know that.

I don't get it. You're sarcastically asking why you should have to know something about an issue before you post accusatory monologues about it?

The "common-sense deduction" here is that first-glance judgments about complex issues are inherently suspect, and that conclusions which flatter or immediately reinforce our preexisting views deserve more scrutiny, not less.

I would definitely ban immigration lottery because it is a likely potential terrorist gateway into the USA.
I would also study up on the Australian immigration system, which is primarily merit based.
What would make America stronger is a higher quality of immigrants, those that can contribute through qualification or financial resources.
If we are to remain strong, we need to adapt to changing times and stop clinging to old ways, excused by old ways.
We need to focus on excellence, instead of wallowing in all inclusiveness.
Diversity for the sake of diversity does not promote excellence.
Our focus should be to protect our borders and ensure that all those that are legally here can pursue excellence, without bias.
Even then, like in any group, big or small, there will always be those who fail to make the cut on their own.
I believe in helping those that really want to help themselves.
I am anti-leach!

So at what point would you bulldoze the Statue of Liberty then?

Too expensive to get bull dozers to Liberty Island. The new plan would be to "give" it to Mexico and then they can scrap it, sell it back to us for that big construction project they got going on down there.