Paris Attacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
521

Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?

FUCK NO, you wouldn’t! I don’t know ANY parent that would make that call. So why would we do the same thing with the refugee/terrorist scenario? Why would we even risk the possibility?

Here is a link of 15 refugees that proved to be terrorists. Does any SANE person think that we can import 10,000 (or more) refugees from SYRIA, without a few terrorists slipping through?

“But they will be vetted”, the Obama apologists say… Vetted HOW? By WHOM? Against what database?

Here is the director of the FBI just LAST MONTH (Oct, 2015) testifying before Congress stating that they do not have the ability to properly vet the Syrian refugees:

So if we have no way to vet these people, ISIS has STATED that they will be sending terrorists in via refugees and they have already demonstrated their ability to infiltrate into European cities and commit acts of terror, WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE TAKE THAT RISK?

Seriously. To do so is an act of utter insanity! The number one priority of the Government of the United States of America is (or SHOULD BE) to PROTECT the citizens of the United States of America. That means making decisions that further that goal, not undermine it. This administration shows an utter disregard for the American Citizen. It is more interested in pandering to the interests of illegal immigrants and potential refugees. But what about US? What about the average tax paying AMERICAN who is AGAINST this policy?

WE DON’T WANT THEM HERE, AND OBAMA IS IGNORING US. But he knows best, right? Fuck that - we are a REPUBLIC! We elect representatives to govern AT OUR CONSENT!!! Not to ignore our wishes and enact policies that place us in danger or hurt us.

Even ONE is too much. If ONE terrorist get’s through and kills even ONE American citizen, THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE! This isn’t a game of percentages and averages, these are AMERICAN LIVES. And I’m sorry, those are the lives that I care about. I really don’t give a flying fuck about the poor deprived souls in the Middle East. They want their Sharia law, I say let them have it. But for Christ’s sake, don’t bring it here.

523

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Yeah Push, just look at all those poor women & children in those pictures. No one there could possibly be any threat. Damn, I’m so ashamed, I’ve been such a fear mongerer.[/quote]

I’m puzzled why Push linked that article. It concerns economic migrants, not Syrian refugees. Speaking of which, over 50 percent are children and 2 percent are military age males.[/quote]

Bullshit about only 2 percent being military age males. Even if I’m wrong, that 200 out of 10,000 which means we will be sure to have at least a hand full of terrorists.

I welcome the children, by the way. Boys under 14 and girls under 16 adopted into american homes.[/quote]

That’s the data set as it currently stands. You calling bullshit doesn’t refute that. You have evidence to indicate otherwise outside of your gut impulse informed by fearful bigotry? That ignores the extensive vetting process that refugees to the United States undergo. It isn’t perfect by any means, but it is quite intensive. Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees have been resettled in the United States sense 9/11: how many mass terrorist attacks have been carried out? The moral and strategic case for admitting Syrian refugees far outweighs barring them. There’s a reason defense wonks are lining up across the board in defense of refugees. [/quote]

What data set are you looking at? This is what I just found.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php[/quote]

Myths and facts: admitting Syrian refugees

http://m.state.gov/md250005.htm

Refugee screening process

http://m.state.gov/md249804.htm

The moral and strategic case for admitting Syrian refugees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...yrian-refugees/

http://warontherocks.com/...about-refugees/

524

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.

525

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.

526

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If ONE terrorist get’s through and kills even ONE American citizen, THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!
[/quote]

seems like common sense 101

527

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.[/quote]

I agree, and the jelly bean analogy does not reflect the “another child’s life” part of it.

528

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.[/quote]

Yes. The idea that a parent would choose the lives of unknown children over the life of his own is so absurd that I have to assume it was either a joke, or poor wording that was intended to convey the opposite idea.

529

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.[/quote]

Yes. The idea that a parent would choose the lives of unknown children over the life of his own is so absurd that I have to assume it was either a joke, or poor wording that was intended to convey the opposite idea.
[/quote]

And this brings up another point, those who don’t have kids, how should they feel about this issue? Its arguable that letting in refugees will save more lives than not doing. If that’s the case then from their standpoint aren’t they doing the right thing?

530

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.[/quote]

Yes. The idea that a parent would choose the lives of unknown children over the life of his own is so absurd that I have to assume it was either a joke, or poor wording that was intended to convey the opposite idea.
[/quote]

And this brings up another point, those who don’t have kids, how should they feel about this issue? Its arguable that letting in refugees will save more lives than not doing. If that’s the case then from their standpoint aren’t they doing the right thing?[/quote]

If this were a privatized or voluntary society, the “right” thing(for those who feel the desire) to do would be for the person with such a feeling to adopt and save as many children(and adults, if he wanted) as he possibly could. However, with things the way they are, that person’s charitable desire will be forcibly subsidized by those who do not wish to bring in refugees-so he’ll basically be stealing from those who do not wish to bring in refugees. That is not right.

531

"ISIL terrorists will try to sneak in with refugees.

The United States vetting system is robust. Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States. The vetting process is coordinated among the national security elements in government and, at up to two years, it is often criticized for being too lengthy. Of all routes for a terrorist to enter the United States, coming as a refugee makes least sense.

Many refugees are military-aged males.

Actually, over half of current Syrian refugees to the United States are children. Only about two percent are males of ?combat age.? The top priority is for those who are ?survivors of violence and torture, those with severe medical conditions, and women and children.? And, to appropriate a statement by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, if a heavily vetted ?military-age? Syrian male leading his family is trying to enter the United States as a refugee, so what?

Even with stringent vetting, ISIL will still try to infiltrate the United States.

Ok, sure. Maybe they?ll try. But given this extensive concern, it stands to reason that agencies including the National Counterterrorism Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State ? all part of the vetting process ? will be watching closely. This will undoubtedly be tough and slow for the analysts and experts involved, as FBI Director Comey and others have previewed, and yes, there will be some highly scrutinized risk. But I know these folks, you know these folks ? and we can give them their due.

?We can?t allow anyone in this country that we can?t vet.?

Exactly. And we don?t.

I don?t care if they?re vetted, I?m still concerned about ISIL.

President Obama said it best: ?I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL. ? ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there?s war between Islam and the West, and when you see individuals in positions of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land, that feeds the ISIL narrative. It?s counter-productive.?

We must ?do everything possible to prevent terrorists from reaching our shores.?

Yes. Press your elected representatives for a real debate on objectives and means to counter ISIL globally. Terrorist threats against the United States and our allies and partners deserve serious and comprehensive responses (which have fortunately begun to emerge more and more). But stopping the flow of Syrian refugees is not one. Even France, in the wake of the devastating attacks in Paris, remains committed to accepting 30,000 Syrian refugees.

?We must take decisive action to show the American people that we are doing all we can to protect them.?

No disagreement. But the bill passed by the House last week doesn?t actually do much to improve the current system, except to effectively bring it to a halt by requiring clearance of all refugees by the director of the FBI, the director of national intelligence, and the secretary of homeland security. Other vulnerabilities, like the visa waiver program, may merit more attention.

Look what Syrian refugees did in Paris.

Most of the known attackers were French or Belgian, but this investigation continues.

This is not our problem. This is not in our interest. This is not American.

I won?t quote the Statue of Liberty for the millionth time, but America has historically, and to its great benefit, opened its doors to those seeking refuge on our shores, from Albert Einstein to Madeleine Albright to my grandfather. The times when we have not ? such as the terrible story of the MS St. Louis, and the estimated 200-plus Jewish refugees turned away from the United States who ultimately perished in World War II ? are blights on our national conscience. And thanks, John Oliver, for the reminder that ?there was only one time in American history when the fear of refugees wiping everyone out did actually come true ? and we?ll be celebrating it on Thursday."

532

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.[/quote]

Yes. The idea that a parent would choose the lives of unknown children over the life of his own is so absurd that I have to assume it was either a joke, or poor wording that was intended to convey the opposite idea.
[/quote]

And this brings up another point, those who don’t have kids, how should they feel about this issue? Its arguable that letting in refugees will save more lives than not doing. If that’s the case then from their standpoint aren’t they doing the right thing?[/quote]

If this were a privatized or voluntary society, the “right” thing(for those who feel the desire) to do would be for the person with such a feeling to adopt and save as many children(and adults, if he wanted) as he possibly could. However, with things the way they are, that person’s charitable desire will be forcibly subsidized by those who do not wish to bring in refugees-so he’ll basically be stealing from those who do not wish to bring in refugees. That is not right.

[/quote]

European Union GDP is projected to grow by one quarter of one percent as a result of refugee resettlement. That might seem very insubstantial, but it is significant when the the EU accounts for one quarter of global GDP.

533

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Yeah Push, just look at all those poor women & children in those pictures. No one there could possibly be any threat. Damn, I’m so ashamed, I’ve been such a fear mongerer.[/quote]

You’ve got to be as dumb as a sack of rocks setting on the wheel well of the short bus to buy into the notion that having concern about letting these folks overwhelm your country is “fear-mongering and hysterical.” I shake my head at the sheer stupidity.
[/quote]

Never stated that. Concern is warranted, which is why refugees (designated by the UNHCR) are subject to more scrutiny and intensive investigation than any other traveler to the United States. Syrian refugees are subject to even more scrutiny. Overwhelm? 10,000 is not overwhelming for a country as populous as the United States. Let us not forget that hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees have been resettled in America since 9/11.

534

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.[/quote]

Yes. The idea that a parent would choose the lives of unknown children over the life of his own is so absurd that I have to assume it was either a joke, or poor wording that was intended to convey the opposite idea.
[/quote]

And this brings up another point, those who don’t have kids, how should they feel about this issue? Its arguable that letting in refugees will save more lives than not doing. If that’s the case then from their standpoint aren’t they doing the right thing?[/quote]

If this were a privatized or voluntary society, the “right” thing(for those who feel the desire) to do would be for the person with such a feeling to adopt and save as many children(and adults, if he wanted) as he possibly could. However, with things the way they are, that person’s charitable desire will be forcibly subsidized by those who do not wish to bring in refugees-so he’ll basically be stealing from those who do not wish to bring in refugees. That is not right.

[/quote]

European Union GDP is projected to grow by one quarter of one percent as a result of refugee resettlement. That might seem very insubstantial, but it is significant when the the EU accounts for one quarter of global GDP.[/quote]

That may be; but I was only talking about “right,” which has nothing to do with GDP.

For what it’s worth, I have no problem with completely opening the doors to the U.S. That may be the best chance we have to right the ship, at least in some areas of the country.

535

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

Your naivete is mind boggling.[/quote]

It’s right out of 1984

I can think of very few better examples of blatant disregard for common sense.

Bistro has mentioned his desire to go into government work and it strikes me as both sad and telling that this is the type person we are getting in so many – too many – policy making /influencing positions. Left wing ideology has infected academia, and government employed wonks, like The Plague; it consumes and eventually kills (intellectually) its hosts. Only a rare few – take Beans for instance – weather its ravages and recover to live healthy lives.[/quote]

International affairs don’t lend themselves to gut impulse and analogy. They require enormous amounts of study. There is no “common sense” when it comes to security studies especially.

Departments such as mine are hardly left wing. If anything, the opposite argument can (and has) been made. Nothing is left wing about my position. I’m a Realist, and admitting Syrian refugees makes far more sense morally and strategically than barring them. You cite tabloids almost exclusively, so forgive me if I find your standards for intellectual rigor amusing. Feel free to avoid addressing my argument directly, slap up another tabloid or two, and make more personal attacks.

536

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

Uh, you’re not a parent, are you? LOL

Yes, I place a higher value on the lives of my children than just about anything on the planet. Certainly more than a bunch of muslims! I don’t care what the number is - ALL of them.

And I effectively said that at the bottom of my post. I place value on AMERICAN lives. That’s my country. That’s my TRIBE. I am not willing to place the lives of MY people at risk to save people that that believe in a religion that ultimately is at philosophical odds with every thing I believe in and who may be susceptible to be “radicalized” and one day grow to hate America and possibly try to commit acts of terror.

America = Freedom

Islam = Submission

I’m sorry (not really), the price is too high.

537

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.[/quote]

I agree, and the jelly bean analogy does not reflect the “another child’s life” part of it.[/quote]

No, it accurately reflects EXACTLY how much I give a fuck about them.

538

[quote]Bismark wrote:

"ISIL terrorists will try to sneak in with refugees.

The United States vetting system is robust. Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States. The vetting process is coordinated among the national security elements in government and, at up to two years, it is often criticized for being too lengthy. Of all routes for a terrorist to enter the United States, coming as a refugee makes least sense.

[/quote]

Since you ignored it the first time, here it is again:

The DIRECTOR OF THE FBI says WE CANNOT VET THEM RELIABLY. THERE IS NO DATABASE TO QUERRY.

I love the way you ignore direct evidence that doesn’t jive with you liberal talking points.

Just like you ignored the other poster’s data that challenged your “2% of Syrian refugees are of military age”. Just ignored it! LOL

539

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.[/quote]

I agree, and the jelly bean analogy does not reflect the “another child’s life” part of it.[/quote]

No, it accurately reflects EXACTLY how much I give a fuck about them.
[/quote]

I agree but that tends to be ignored when debating liberals on the issue. If that was simply said upfront then we can ignore all the stuff about how likely 1 in X of them is a terrorist, etc.

540

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an analogy for those who’s script is that “the rewards out weigh the risk” when letting in terrorists mixed with refugees:

If you had bowl with 1000 Jelly beans, and KNEW that that three of them were poisoned, would you let your child eat out of the bowl?
[/quote]

That is an inaccurate analogy. The jelly beans represent human lives including children potentially lost if they stayed in their country. Comparing the satisfaction of eating jelly bean to saving a human life is great for facebook memes posted by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the risk was a 9/11 style attack which is close to worst case scenario it would be a bowl of 100,000 jelly beans and 1 was poisoned. So, is your kids life worth more than an unknown number of refugees, including children? Lets say 1000 just to pick a number but that’s a low estimate.[/quote]

I’m sure most parents would choose their child’s life over another child’s life.[/quote]

I agree, and the jelly bean analogy does not reflect the “another child’s life” part of it.[/quote]

No, it accurately reflects EXACTLY how much I give a fuck about them.
[/quote]

I agree but that tends to be ignored when debating liberals on the issue. If that was simply said upfront then we can ignore all the stuff about how likely 1 in X of them is a terrorist, etc.[/quote]

How so? One has nothing to do with the other.