21 U.S. states will not allow syrian refugees

[Reforged]

In all honesty I can't decide which is the right call.
On one hand banning the refugees will alienate that nation and may well drive other members of that country into the arms of fanaticism while allowing some of its more rational occupants to be destroyed thanks to turning them away.
On the other hand if we accept them when theres a clear tone of fanaticism in that countries national identity right now then it could actually begin to seep into the US over the next 30-40 years and make homegrown terrorism more likely just like in the UK. Not only that if we are accepting the rational Syrians then who is left to counter the irrational ones?

It doesn't seem like either one is a solution. The opposition to the fanaticism needs to be empowered, not hidden away.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Impeachment is a criminal process, WoG. What crimes would you suggest Obama be charged with?

Impeachment is a political process; it's not a criminal procedure.  If the Congress Critters don't like the color of his suits they can impeach him and remove him from office.  The refugee crisis appears like one that the majority of people will support his impeachment on.  

I'm OK with his impeachment on this issue.  It's also why Trump will most likely get around 350 electoral votes and become the next President, especially if something bad happens here.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

In all honesty I can't decide which is the right call.
On one hand banning the refugees will alienate that nation and may well drive other members of that country into the arms of fanaticism while allowing some of its more rational occupants to be destroyed thanks to turning them away.
On the other hand if we accept them when theres a clear tone of fanaticism in that countries national identity right now then it could actually begin to seep into the US over the next 30-40 years and make homegrown terrorism more likely just like in the UK. Not only that if we are accepting the rational Syrians then who is left to counter the irrational ones?

It doesn't seem like either one is a solution. The opposition to the fanaticism needs to be empowered, not hidden away.

It's doubtful if there is a right call.  The West instigated the chaos and now has to deal with it.  As a result of every war we suck people out of the countries that we have fought and now it's the turn of the people in the Middle East.  

The people on the road are in dire straits.  The weather will soon start turning really cold and countless kids and older people will freeze to death.  There will be bodies everywhere.  Germany is trying to house them, even at the point of kicking Germans out of their homes.  Each refugee that makes it to England costs the country about $38,000.  Sooner or later even the bleeding hearts will get tired of the expense.

At some point the average citizen will kick the politicians to the curb and the countries will fall into repressive dictatorships.  Tens of millions of people will be killed.  We are witnessing a major historical event.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Impeachment is a criminal process, WoG. What crimes would you suggest Obama be charged with?

Impeachment is a political process; it's not a criminal procedure.  If the Congress Critters don't like the color of his suits they can impeach him and remove him from office.

You're wrong. Perhaps you should read a little before you reply? Here, I'll post the text for you:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This clause clearly addresses criminal issues, not political.

I will ask you again: what charges would you lay against the President in order to bring an impeachment action? Be specific; cite the criminal code you think he violated.

[Anomalocaris]

One has to wonder exactly why ISIS choose to attack France in this manner, when Europe is struggling with the refugee crisis in Syria.

To me the answer Seems at least in part to discourage emigration. ISIS doesn't just want to create a fundamentalist taliban like state for their own army of thugs and mercenaries. It wants to rule a state. But the state it is trying to build is being hollowed out by refugees fleeing. So ISIS is trying to strike at where the refugee is going precisely to elicit the sort of reaction we see from malrastoner, governors would not take refugees, their supporters on this forum, and other knee jerk morons, in order to make emigration from the areas controlled by ISIS less appealing.

[Chad32]

But none of them as big as 9/11. That was a horrible event, but they haven't been able to replicate it. I'm more worried about being corrupted from within, than being destroyed from without.

Each time they make an attack we lose some of our freedoms.  Soon we will be more repressive than East Germany was.

That's why my own government worries me more than terrorists from another country. They've used whatever excuse they could to whittle away our freedoms. If it wasn't ISIS, it would be something else. So why be angry at ISIS?

[The Grand Nudger]

Goddamn it it! The douchebag we just got rid of isn't interested in this xenophobic horseshit, for his remaining time in office, but our newly elect is.  Add Kentucky to the list.

[jenny1972]

overnight 6 more states have said they will not allow refugees ill figure out what the 6 new ones are and post them but the article link i gave is updating constantly so you can see the list there i just started this thread and went to bed so im not ignoring anyone lol about to read comments now but here is a map of the now 27 states :

[jenny1972]

Connecticut is a new state that will allow refugees since last night

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC they are, because Connecticut is a terrorist plot to destroy America - and this has long been known.