Immigration Ban

[knapplc]

Is it your position that these human costs are worth a feeling of safety regardless of its basis in reality?

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe?

The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own?

I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solvee the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully?

It offers them safety from bombs falling on their heads. I mean, they are literally asking us to save their lives. Not make them feel safe, but be safe.

Fair enough, so allow me to amend the part of my post that you bolded..... "Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of temporary safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no?"

Do we expect/allow for all of these refugees to never return to their homes? Do we expect the violence in Syria to end without further diplomatic or military policy? Or will it continue/spread across boarders until these extremest have killed everyone?

How were we truly offering a solution to their safety-risks under the previous administrations, what should we continue from those policies, and what else should we do to solve the source-problem of their safety-risks going forward?

Lets be real, the refugees aren't the issue, the war is, what are we doing to end it? Does offering refuge indefinitely truly solve anything?

Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave.

Once the house has been rebuilt, you return.

 

[teachercd]

I feel threatened by teachercd.

So then you fully agree that if I also feel threatened by you that we should both be banned from here, correct? I am down if you are down.

I do not agree with your stance that "feeling safe is very important." Unlike you, I believe being safe is very important.

That's where we differ, and why you're OK with being banned based on someone's feeling, while I'm not. Understand?

Got it!


So, that poster I mentioned on Rivals that outed another poster and was banned even though at the time there was no rule about it...you feel that was wrong.

Thanks! I appreciate your comments

In this Rivals scenario, the person was banned for the act of outing someone, not the feeling it engendered.

Don't confuse feelings with facts. That's the problem here, and why you don't understand how I feel.

Let me try the word count thing we should have.

No, not really, probably not.

 

[knapplc]

Why should HuskerBoard have a word count? How would that work?

 

[teachercd]

Why should HuskerBoard have a word count? How would that work?

Why? It would help people ACTUALLY get their point across

How? Like twitter? I am not sure, I don't really know about coding and stuff like that.

As we all know, the longer the post, the less is said. Like the dude that spoke for 6 hours before Abe Lincoln at Gettysburg.

 

[knapplc]

Why should HuskerBoard have a word count? How would that work?

Why? It would help people ACTUALLY get their point across

How? Like twitter? I am not sure, I don't really know about coding and stuff like that.

As we all know, the longer the post, the less is said. Like the dude that spoke for 6 hours before Abe Lincoln at Gettysburg.

That's absurd.

 

[teachercd]

Why should HuskerBoard have a word count? How would that work?

Why? It would help people ACTUALLY get their point across

How? Like twitter? I am not sure, I don't really know about coding and stuff like that.

As we all know, the longer the post, the less is said. Like the dude that spoke for 6 hours before Abe Lincoln at Gettysburg.

That's absurd.

Well played! Look how much you just said in such a short amount. Impressed!

 

[Landlord]

If anything, a word count would be more useful if it had a minimum number of words necessary instead of a max. That would filter out a lot of the more worthless responses in complex topics.

 

[knapplc]

I've impressed teach today. It's a great day.

 

[teachercd]

If anything, a word count would be more useful if it had a minimum number of words necessary instead of a max. That would filter out a lot of the more worthless responses in complex topics.

That is actually very interesting.

 

[TonyStalloni]

In the short term taking in the best and the brightest refugees seems the right thing to do.. In the long term however it robs from that society of the very people with leadership skills that could see their country to a better place with help from the world community. If during Revolutionary times the 1/3 of society that wanted to break away from England had decided it was easier to move to Quebec Canada or Mexico or some other safe country the revolution wouldn't have happened.

 

[teachercd]

I've impressed teach today. It's a great day.

Didn't even need to use my AK

(Who knows the song?)

 

[Oade]

Is it your position that these human costs are worth a feeling of safety regardless of its basis in reality?

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe?

The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own?

I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solvee the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully?

It offers them safety from bombs falling on their heads. I mean, they are literally asking us to save their lives. Not make them feel safe, but be safe.

Fair enough, so allow me to amend the part of my post that you bolded..... "Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of temporary safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no?"

Do we expect/allow for all of these refugees to never return to their homes? Do we expect the violence in Syria to end without further diplomatic or military policy? Or will it continue/spread across boarders until these extremest have killed everyone?

How were we truly offering a solution to their safety-risks under the previous administrations, what should we continue from those policies, and what else should we do to solve the source-problem of their safety-risks going forward?

Lets be real, the refugees aren't the issue, the war is, what are we doing to end it? Does offering refuge indefinitely truly solve anything?

Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave.

Once the house has been rebuilt, you return.

You also call the fire department to come put out the fire, or at least to attempt it, before all of your belongings go up in smoke.

You don't just stay at your neighbors house until the fire stops, and new house is built, on its own.

 

[Landlord]

In the short term taking in the best and the brightest refugees seems the right thing to do.. In the long term however it robs from that society of the very people with leadership skills that could see their country to a better place with help from the world community. If during Revolutionary times the 1/3 of society that wanted to break away from England had decided it was easier to move to Quebec Canada or Mexico or some other safe country the revolution wouldn't have happened.

It's not robbing if it's those people's decision to leave, which they should have the freedom and right to do, is it? The majority of refugees are people who are completely incapable of fending for themselves - women, children, people living in poverty, etc. That's only one way that makes it not really comparable to the Revolutionary War, where many colonists already had life fairly well off comparatively.

 

[knapplc]

Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave.

Once the house has been rebuilt, you return.

You also call the fire department to come put out the fire, or at least to attempt it, before all of your belongings go up in smoke.

Right. So we're taking in refugees to get them out of the burning building. Several countries, including the US, are trying to "put out the fire."

Where's the disconnect here?

 

[teachercd]

Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave.

Once the house has been rebuilt, you return.

You also call the fire department to come put out the fire, or at least to attempt it, before all of your belongings go up in smoke.

Right. So we're taking in refugees to get them out of the burning building. Several countries, including the US, are trying to "put out the fire."

Where's the disconnect here?

What happens when the fire is out?