Well, maybe there's some hope for the future generation after all, eh? Turns out that not every single one of those OSU students is a cheese-eater.
Quote:
Following the attack earlier this week, Stephanie Clemons Thompson, OSU's assistant director of resident life, posted a message on Facebook, critical of those who had been sharing pictures of the attacker's dead body on campus.
"I pray you find compassion for his life, as troubled as it clearly was. Think of the pain he must have been in to feel that his actions were the only solution."
Soon after, a local paramedic-in-training named Brock Jenkins started a Change.org petition, calling for Thompson to "be removed from her leadership position...effective immediately."
"We cannot allow someone in her influential position to be an apologist to these acts of violent terror," the message read in part.
As of the time this article was written, over 1400 people had already signed the petition.
She probably wants us to "feel the pain" of the damn head-choppin terrorist he called a "hero," too, eh?
Well, things have changed a little, now, eh? Instead of country-wide calls for some white baseball player to be fired for saying "insensitive things" off the field, now we have demands that a black woman be fired just for crying her poor eyes out for a cute little muslim boy, eh?
0 Replies
georgeob1
-1
Reply
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 07:25 pm
@TomTomBinks,
TomTomBinks wrote:
I don't offer a solution, LM. I only say we shouldn't abandon our principles for the sake of security.
I believe yoiu are grossly overstating the apparent problem here. I don't think that "abandoning all our principles" has ever been the question. We have for well over a century been both selective and specific about national quotas for immigration, and even in the peak years of the 19th century we turned away the sick and infirmed and those with expressed political views we thought dangerous. Most nations are highly selective about immigrant qualifications: we are more liberal than most, and we have by far a better track record in assimilating those who come here. We have every right to remsain selectiuve and to juddge potential immigrants in terms of their likely adaptability to our lifesytyles and culture. An American can get a Chinese passport only if he/she is of Chinese descent. There is good reasdon in today's world to suspect the willingness of potential Moslem immigrants to adapt to our culture, and we have already seen deadly tterrorist acts on the part of some of them.
0 Replies
layman
-2
Reply
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 07:46 pm
@TomTomBinks,
TomTomBinks wrote:
I guess I just don't get you, LM. You're either a grade A number one asshole or you're baiting me with your "humor". I honestly can't tell. So either we can have a real discussion or we can't, it's up to you.
Read George's post, Tom. He's giving a "serious" response to you and is sayin some of the things I mighta said myself, but not as well.
My shorthand response to you would be that I see you as being too simplistic in your idealism. Your intentions are, as I see it, praiseworthy, but I don't tend to shoot for unattainable "ideal" outcomes. Compromises always have to be made. If I have to choose between helping the other guy and not hurting myself, I will put self-interest first. You don't always have to choose, often you can accomodate both interests.. But not always.
Perhaps those with simplistic minds might think a few cases of a refugees acting with violence and/or terror represents refugees as a whole, but it would not make it true.
Yes he does have a way with words, sort of intimidating, but he says what you say just highfalutin.
I am sure China has a lot of customs we would not have, they do not have the same values the US has or at least had.
0 Replies
revelette1
2
Reply
Sun 4 Dec, 2016 11:26 am
@McGentrix,
No and neither do you. Innocence until proven guilty. We have homeland security and other ways of tracking terrorist who actually either are in a cell plotting or in terrorist groups. It might not be foolproof, but then neither would rounding every Muslim looking person in the US and doing something with them.
0 Replies
georgeob1
-1
Reply
Sun 4 Dec, 2016 03:01 pm
Like it or not our world is divided into nation states that compete with each other economically and sometimes in more aggressive ways. Languages and cultural values differ substantially among them as do political traditions and laws. All of the nations in the world are selective about just who they will admit as immigrants, and nearly all far more restrictive than are we. No nation recognizes an unqualified "right" of citizens of other nations either to enter or reside within its borders. Indeed most Moslem nations don't accept Christians or Buddists as citizens at all , though some of the more tolerant ones (Morocco and a few of the Gulf States, for example) do allow for more or less permanent residency. My impression is that the nations most open to immigration ( and most sought after by potential immigrants) in today's world are the U.S., Canada, and Brazil. Nearly all the others, including Australia and New Zealand are a good deal more restrictive.
In circumstances such as these where the potential demand for admission as immigrants so far exceeds our ability to accomodate them, it seems foolish in the extreme for us not to be selective.
Revelette and others appear to want us to adopt even more liberal immigration laws - even to the extent of apparently unrestricted immigrsation from people of other countries and cultures that won't admit us to theirs, and which don't share even the imperfect values of tolerance that prevail here. Giving the tumult ongoing in the world between Moslem nations and others , also including that among the Moslem nations themselves, plus the evident antagonism they exhibit toward Western Culture it seems quite absurd to suppose that anything good would come from what they recommend.
There is another factor involved here as well. One of the many complex facets of human nature is that we must, and do, teach those we encounter how to treat us. That's sometines a fairly subtle thing, but I think most of us know and experience the truth or it. As a nation we need to be careful of just how we teach others. Visibly restriucting immigrants from hostile intolerant cultures will very likely, over time, have a beneficial effect on them.
Revelette and others appear to want us to adopt even more liberal immigration laws
Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions. I think every care should be taken when refugees enter the country and immigrants who really are criminals deported. I just don't think we should make wholescale generalized strategies such as denying all Muslims or those from Islamic States into the country or start rounding up all immigrants and deporting them. It just seems wasteful and not efficient.
I don't think your efficiency argument holds water. What could be easier, more efficient and less costly than denying admission of immigrants from selected countries? What do you mean by "every care" with respect to the admission of refugees? It sounds a bit like what Trump is saying.
Finally the existence of laws that are not enforced threatens all laws. We have slowly and steadily slipped into the non enforcement of our immigration laws for several decades now. It's truly a dangertousd situation with many continuing bad side effects. It appears Trump wants to start out by (1) identifying illegal residents; and (2) deporting those convicted of felony crimes. Do you object to that?
Dont play his game Rev. He and others say "so you want to import terroists into the country", in an effort to make you defend your beliefs. But they are mostly selfish liars who dont give a shyt about anybody but themselves. They are tRump clones with all his deficiencies.
0 Replies
revelette1
2
Reply
Mon 5 Dec, 2016 07:22 am
@georgeob1,
No I don't, it is the policy we have been doing all along; however, it is doubtful Trump will doing that. I worry about Kris Koboach and see a trend going back to the Cheney days.
0 Replies
Frugal1
-2
Reply
Mon 5 Dec, 2016 08:05 am
I'm looking forward to a president that actually enforces our immigration laws.
0bama hasn't enforced the laws, and our citizens are paying a heavy price.
0 Replies
layman
-2
Reply
Mon 5 Dec, 2016 08:29 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
Perhaps those with simplistic minds might think a few cases of a refugees acting with violence and/or terror represents refugees as a whole, but it would not make it true.
Abdul Artan, the OSU terrorist thought that, but I don't. Few do. But why do you even bring that up? It's not the least bit relevant.
Islam is not "just another religion." It is a political ideology. A system of laws and government commanded by Allah. The constitution-waving muslim who was given a nation-wide audience at the DNC, for just one example, claims that Sharia law takes precedence over the US constitution. He should have been waving the Koran.
Can you name even one country in the world where the muslims are in power that respects women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, or any of the other ideals you libs claim to "stand for?" They HATE, and want to destroy, "western culture" and replace it with muslim "culture"--theocracy with sharia law, etc.
Rev wrote: Perhaps those with simplistic minds might think a few cases of a refugees acting with violence and/or terror represents refugees as a whole, but it would not make it true.
It (the above) is entirely relevant if you advocate banning all Muslims and refugees based on what some do.
Do you have a source and a link to an exact quote where he thinks Sharia laws takes precedence over the US constitution?
No, not handy, but it can easily be found. Do your own research.
0 Replies
layman
0
Reply
Mon 5 Dec, 2016 09:03 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:
It (the above) is entirely relevant if you advocate banning all Muslims and refugees based on what some do.
Nobody, certainly not Trump, advocates that. Temporarily suspending IMMIGRATION of all muslims until we can get a reliable vetting process in place is hardly "banning all muslims."
But you probably think that Trump has said he will round up all muslims, nation-wide, and put them in concentration camps, eh? If no Muslim country will take them, he'll just put them in gas ovens.
0 Replies
layman
0
Reply
Mon 5 Dec, 2016 09:53 am
@revelette1,
It only took a few seconds, and I was kinda bored, so...
Quote:
Khizr Khan, the Muslim father of a slain American soldier, is an attorney who has previously written in a law journal about Islamic law. Khan wrote “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law” in the Houston Journal of International Law in 1983...
Khan writes, “to Muslims [such as Kahn] the Quran being the very word of God, it is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.”
Khan writes. “All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah.”
He explains that Sharia is derived from the Quran and Sunnah, and that the Quran “is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.”
“Family law is laid down in 70 injunctions; civil law in another 70; penal law in 30; jurisdiction and procedure in 13; constitutional law in 10; international relations in 25; and economic and financial order in 10,” he said.
Those are all Kahn's words, but the Breitbart article reveals how he also endorses books which make it all even more clear. Kahn says “Brohi argues convincingly for the establishment of a moral value system before guarantees can be given for any kind of rights. To illustrate the point he notes, ‘There is no such thing as human right in the abstract.’”
In context, Khan concurs that human rights can only be guaranteed through the establishment of Sharia’s moral and legal code."
Read the whole article to see what Brohi's book says.
