Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which is more frightening?
A. Radical Muslim terrorists 7 8.43%
B. Western leaders who allow radical Muslims into their civilized population 3 3.61%
C. The liberals who give radical Muslims a pass 2 2.41%
D. Both B and C 55 66.27%
E. Other 16 19.28%
Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2015, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,844,821 times
Reputation: 1438

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr View Post
Ah, so the true feelings come out. "Bible thumping wingnuts", how cute.
Do you call Muslims Koran-thumping nuts? I'm guessing not, as leftists wouldn't want to insult their new favorite religion.
By the way, which governors brought up religion? They're saying Syrian, not Muslim. And the bipartisan bill that overwhelming passed the house today also does have mention religion as a qualifier.
Obama brought up the religion comment not because it's a commonly held belief by those who want to proceed with caution with the refugees, but because he's a terribly divisive "leader" and wants the attention off himself for looking like a complete incompetent for calling the "JV team" "contained."
Obama mentioned religion because both Cruz and Bush had said that only Christians should be allowed to come to the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2015, 03:28 PM
 
Location: The Lone Star State
8,030 posts, read 9,051,870 times
Reputation: 5050
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
Obama mentioned religion because both Cruz and Bush had said that only Christians should be allowed to come to the United States.
Cruz and Bush are not state governors and don't have the power.
Which means the only reason Obama mentioned it was political. On foreign soil no less.
That's extremely uncouth, especially for someone who is supposed to be a leader.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2015, 04:41 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,931,918 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr View Post
Ah, so the true feelings come out. "Bible thumping wingnuts", how cute.
Do you call Muslims Koran-thumping nuts? I'm guessing not, as leftists wouldn't want to insult their new favorite religion.
By the way, which governors brought up religion? They're saying Syrian, not Muslim. And the bipartisan bill that overwhelming passed the house today also does have mention religion as a qualifier.
Obama brought up the religion comment not because it's a commonly held belief by those who want to proceed with caution with the refugees, but because he's a terribly divisive "leader" and wants the attention off himself for looking like a complete incompetent for calling the "JV team" "contained."
Wow, talk about twisting a story and bending the truth! I specifically watched both Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush say the Syrian refugees should be tested for being Christians. Cruz specifically said we should accept "Christians from Syria, and only Christians." Want to see a video? Also, I don't know what the heck you mean by "Syrian, not Muslim." That makes no sense.

I also don't know what you mean when you refer to my "true feelings." Why would the fact that I don't like hypocrisy make me a leftist? Is the Pope, who told us to be compassionate, a leftist? I was referring to those who keep talking about the Bible and then do not follow the teachings of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr View Post
Cruz and Bush are not state governors and don't have the power.
Which means the only reason Obama mentioned it was political. On foreign soil no less.
That's extremely uncouth, especially for someone who is supposed to be a leader.
Apparently you have no idea that when Congress passes a bill the Governors have nothing to do with it and Cruz is a Senator.

Last edited by justNancy; 11-19-2015 at 04:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2015, 04:51 PM
 
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,730,207 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye state your name View Post
The responses are worded poorly. You ask "Which is more frightening"

And then list 1. Terrorists
2. Western leaders who.....
3. Liberals who.....


Are liberals or Western leaders more frightening than Terrorists? I am shocked at the results. Personally, I voted for the terrorists. The FACT that they are being welcomed into our country is even more frightening, but those that are allowing it to happen don't scare me at all.

totally agree..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2015, 04:56 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,931,918 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr View Post
Cruz and Bush are not state governors and don't have the power.
Which means the only reason Obama mentioned it was political. On foreign soil no less.
That's extremely uncouth, especially for someone who is supposed to be a leader.
What power are you talking about? Congressional power? Also, where does Obama mention anyone by name or office? His exact words:

"When I hear folks say that maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful," Obama said.

After Bush made the U.S. one of the most hated countries in the world, Obama has tried to heal relations with other nations. For some reason, people like you don't seem to realize that we need allies and, when countries in Europe are taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees and we don't even want to help 10,000 it only tarnishes our image even more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2015, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
9,532 posts, read 16,515,499 times
Reputation: 14570
We should be assisting the massive amount of poor people in this country. People that have to choose between rent, food or the outrageous cost of the medicine they have to take to live in this high and mighty acting country. This Gov't and many Social Service Agencies, are pro's at the neglect and abuse they show lower income people in America. The elderly, the unemployed, the on and on. We have taken in so many refugees over the past decades, that I think we have more than done our part. I remember refugees coming into San Diego after the Vietnam War, and then one war torn country after the other all these years. I think its time we accept the fact we have a huge amount of American citizens that are suffering, yet forced to help pay for refugees. I do believe it is morally wrong, and very hypocritical of our gov't and much of our population. Always wanting to help the world, but forget our own.


With that said. I think we should help these Syrian Refugees. We should help them thru the UN. To set up a resettlement area in the Middle East. Instead of having them suffering and pouring into, all these countries in these massive amounts. It's wrong and it should stop. A resettlement. Where they can get on their feet and feel some sense of safety and home. In the area of the world they are from, not 10,000 miles away. That is how we should be helping them.

Taking numbers of refugee's into this country, at the expense of Americans is wrong. It is cruel and insensitive to the many that are suffering here. People that would never qualify for all the benefits a refugee will get. Yet they will suffer as they help pay in whatever taxes they pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2015, 05:01 PM
 
Location: 🇬🇧 In jolly old London! 🇬🇧
15,675 posts, read 11,525,422 times
Reputation: 12549
I voted for B.

Simply because all the western Giants in Europe have ****ed themselves by letting everyone else in
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2015, 08:44 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,844,821 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr View Post
Cruz and Bush are not state governors and don't have the power.
Which means the only reason Obama mentioned it was political. On foreign soil no less.
That's extremely uncouth, especially for someone who is supposed to be a leader.
And when Obama mentioned it had nothing to to with the actions of the State Governors. I think Obama was shocked that Republican presidential candidates would engage in such anti-American actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2015, 08:52 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,383,703 times
Reputation: 18436
Default More leery of Conservatives

Like their treatment of blacks, they paint a broad brush over the Syrian refugees, branding them all as undesirable regardless of the individual circumstances of each refugee or their hardships as a whole. The ignorance that drives Conservatives is by far, something to be leery of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2015, 09:38 PM
 
Location: The Lone Star State
8,030 posts, read 9,051,870 times
Reputation: 5050
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
Wow, talk about twisting a story and bending the truth! I specifically watched both Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush say the Syrian refugees should be tested for being Christians. Cruz specifically said we should accept "Christians from Syria, and only Christians." Want to see a video? Also, I don't know what the heck you mean by "Syrian, not Muslim." That makes no sense.

I also don't know what you mean when you refer to my "true feelings." Why would the fact that I don't like hypocrisy make me a leftist? Is the Pope, who told us to be compassionate, a leftist? I was referring to those who keep talking about the Bible and then do not follow the teachings of it.
Apparently you have no idea that when Congress passes a bill the Governors have nothing to do with it and Cruz is a Senator.
Um... that was my point: Cruz and Bush are not governers. They have no power.
Yet O felt the need to whine about them. Purely political.
The governers said Syrian.

Your true feelings were the rant about "bible-thumpers." Do you also call Muslims Koran-thumpers, or are you elective in your outrage?

As to the pope, he said we're at war. O only considers it a "setback."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:31 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top