Paris Attacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
541

[quote]Bismark wrote:

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]

Sorry, I have to address this - most of the “projections” regarding GDP growth are highly questionable and politically motivated. It revolves around the assumption that higher government spending on migrant-related budget items such as language teachers and assimilation courses will have a positive net impact on EU GDP.

All the arguments showing positive migration effects in the Eurozone fall apart when one separates migration inside EU from the migration outside of the EU, showing a huge net drain in the latter case.

Which means that the proverbial Polish builders and Romanian doctors in Germany and UK are net contributors to state coffers while former Eritrean fishermen are not.

With record youth unemployment in the EU I do not see how such an unskilled workforce can positively contribute to the EU economies, while at the same time 40 million Ukrainians who comprise an educated and cheap (salaries between 150-200 USD per month) workforce is still subject to EU visa controls (!)

Also, if all those Syrian and Iraqi “engineers” and “doctors” were any good, they would have already found work with their sunni brethren in the Gulf.

My work experience with Syrians, with the exception of some French educated Arab Christians and some who studied in Russia, is that a Syrian university degree roughly corresponds to a high school diploma. And I’m being generous here.

544

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

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]

Sorry, I have to address this - most of the “projections” regarding GDP growth are highly questionable and politically motivated. It revolves around the assumption that higher government spending on migrant-related budget items such as language teachers and assimilation courses will have a positive net impact on EU GDP.

All the arguments showing positive migration effects in the Eurozone fall apart when one separates migration inside EU from the migration outside of the EU, showing a huge net drain in the latter case.

Which means that the proverbial Polish builders and Romanian doctors in Germany and UK are net contributors to state coffers while former Eritrean fishermen are not.

With record youth unemployment in the EU I do not see how such an unskilled workforce can positively contribute to the EU economies, while at the same time 40 million Ukrainians who comprise an educated and cheap (salaries between 150-200 USD per month) workforce is still subject to EU visa controls (!)

Also, if all those Syrian and Iraqi “engineers” and “doctors” were any good, they would have already found work with their sunni brethren in the Gulf.

My work experience with Syrians, with the exception of some French educated Arab Christians and some who studied in Russia, is that a Syrian university degree roughly corresponds to a high school diploma. And I’m being generous here.

[/quote]

Yeah, just trying to play devil’s advocate. I’m not an economist, so I don’t have a definitive answer to the issue. The study attributes the GDP growth primarily to increased government spending. Syrian refugees won’t be comparable to the average German worker, of course.

545

[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]

546

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Yeah, just trying to play devil’s advocate. I’m not an economist, so I don’t have a definitive answer to the issue. The study attributes the GDP growth primarily to increased government spending. Syrian refugees won’t be comparable to the average German worker, of course. [/quote]

I’m not an economist either, I just like to look around with my two eyes and draw empirical conclusions from that.

It seems that the OECD confirms my assumptions, albeit couched in somewhat diplomatic language. And this was written before the recent migrant crisis:

[quote]
Where Sweden clearly stands out, however, is with respect to the large disparity in the employment levels of low-qualified migrants and their native-born counterparts. Employment rates among the low-educated lag nearly 25 percentage points behind the native-born and among those who are in employment, many are in jobs requiring less than their formal education level

These outcomes are certainly dependent, to some extent, on the composition of the migrant population: many refugees come from
countries with failing education systems and lack even basic
qualifications and skills others with tertiary qualifications often
acquired these in a very different context, raising issues about
the transferability of their credentials [/quote]

All those Ellis island memes are not relevant to the issue - the 19th century US of A had a huge demand for unskilled labor as you guys know more than me.

With the unskilled jobs quickly dying out in the developed world I do not see how functionally illiterate Afghans who disdain physical labor can contribute to the economy - they cannot even work in construction, not to mention other more skilled jobs.

548

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[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/ [/quote]

You’ve got to be kidding me.

You basically challenge me to make a more robust argument on here then you turn around and post links that prove one of your recent statements to be, at best, sloppy with the facts, but more likely an outright lie. That first link gives data similar to what I posted. It says the refugees are made up of over ten percent adult males. The two percent figure you tried to use is adult males not attached to a family unit.

Not to mention, all those links, at least the ones I clicked on, are pure left wing propaganda. Did you even take a breath after posting those links before you accused Push of posting from tabloids?

You need to post your opinion, your reasoning and facts. You can even posts someone else argument on a topic. No blatant propaganda, pushing someone else agenda. That’s really lame.

Better yet, don’t post at all. You should sit back and read what the grownups have to say. Your an idealistic little prick. You know what all idealistic little pricks have in common? They don’t have children. They didn’t work for what they have, they got it from their parents (or they are career politicians or political science professors). They haven’t laid awake at night stressing about how they are going to provide for and care for their family. When you fill those shoes your opinion about national security will carry some weight. Until then it doesn’t and what you’ve posted shows why.

552

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Photo of the Statue of Liberty
[/quote]

Where’s the line about “potential terrorists???”[/quote]

Where’s the line about “potential German spies and saboteurs???”

Many German Jews that could have been saved were murdered by the Schutzstaffel because of such a sentiment.

553

[quote]Bismark 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]
[/quote]

Yes, in 1903 a bronze tablet bearing the text of The New Colossus by was presented by friends of the poet Emma Lazarus. So what? Does that poet who lived over a hundred years ago have a monopoly on our current immigration policy? Back in 1903, had Al Qaeda blown up 3000 people in New York and Washington DC? Was ISIS threatening to come here and commit acts of terror?

No, back in 1903, we didn’t have a bunch of muslims trying to kill us. So what exactly is your point? To tug at my “heart strings” with a poem written for a time that’s long gone? Sorry bro, my feelings are in the truck, and for someone as educated and intelligent as you, quoting the 100 year old poem on the statue of liberty during a debate about current immigration policy is kinda weak…

554

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Photo of the Statue of Liberty
[/quote]

Where’s the line about “potential terrorists???”[/quote]

Where’s the line about “potential German spies and saboteurs???”

Many German Jews that could have been saved were murdered by the Schutzstaffel because of such a sentiment. [/quote]

The sonnet was written in 1883… Just a WEEE bit early for German spies and saboteurs

And to invoke the systematic genocide of the Jews and relating it to THIS argument is downright disgusting. Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself for even going there. Absolutely low class argument.

555

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Photo of the Statue of Liberty
[/quote]

Where’s the line about “potential terrorists???”[/quote]

Where’s the line about “potential German spies and saboteurs???”

Many German Jews that could have been saved were murdered by the Schutzstaffel because of such a sentiment. [/quote]

The sonnet was written in 1883… Just a WEEE bit early for German spies and saboteurs

And to invoke the systematic genocide of the Jews and relating it to THIS argument is downright disgusting. Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself for even going there. Absolutely low class argument.
[/quote]

Except it was essentially the same argument being made by some during WWII. Replace Syrians with German Jews and terrorists with spies and sabateurs. Both refugee crises were securitized.

556

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Does that poet who lived over a hundred years ago have a monopoly on our current immigration policy?
[/quote]

They don’t, but neither do people who want to close the borders.

557

[quote]on edge wrote:

Not to mention, all those links, at least the ones I clicked on, are pure left wing propaganda. Did you even take a breath after posting those links before you accused Push of posting from tabloids?

You need to post your opinion, your reasoning and facts. You can even posts someone else argument on a topic. No blatant propaganda, pushing someone else agenda. That’s really lame.

Better yet, don’t post at all. You should sit back and read what the grownups have to say. Your an idealistic little prick. You know what all idealistic little pricks have in common? They don’t have children. They didn’t work for what they have, they got it from their parents (or they are career politicians or political science professors). They haven’t laid awake at night stressing about how they are going to provide for and care for their family. When you fill those shoes your opinion about national security will carry some weight. Until then it doesn’t and what you’ve posted shows why.[/quote]

Left wing propaganda? State Department figures? A article written for the moderate Washington Post by a constitutional law scholar that also employed at a conservative think tank dedicated to individual liberty, limited government, and free markets? An article written on a highly reputable foreign policy and national security platform that explicitly analyzes international affairs though a Realist lens, written by a defense wonk with deep, direct experience in national security? Are they left wing propaganda because they don’t align with your parochial and preconceived Weltanschauung? Good luck actually addressing the cogent arguments they present.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Breibart and Dailynews are unabashed tabloids, they are not credible sources, especially vis-a-vis articles authored by practitioners and scholars that gone through the gauntlet of editorial and peer review. Those that regularly cite them, though they may be very intelligent, are clearly confining themselves to an echo chamber, and not a very good one at that.

I have, ad nauseum, only to be subjected to personal attacks. Case in point . . .

Idealistic little prick? Classy. I’m a realist, not an idealist. One who happens to have a rudimentary basics of international relations in general and security policy in particular. Your off base insults toward a stranger you know nothing about don’t change the fact that you aren’t even a dilettante in this regard, in spite of you fulfilling your inherent biological potential and fathering children. I’m not going to waste my time with a “grown-up” who devolves to such childish personal attacks because he lacks the intellectual capacity and tempernent to respectfully engage in a substantial debate of a controversial subject. I’d be delighted if you proved me wrong.

558

One who is not even a dilettante can be described as nescient.

The fact that he was not even a dilettante was made apparent by his nescience.

His 1,200 pound powerlifting total and perfect APFT score made obvious the fact that he was far more than a nescient dilettante in the area of physical preparation for battle.

Can anyone tell me whether the above sentences are correct?

559

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Does that poet who lived over a hundred years ago have a monopoly on our current immigration policy?
[/quote]

They don’t, but neither do people who want to close the borders.[/quote]

Nice Strawman!

Typical, liberal argument is typical. Where have I said “close the borders”? Where has ANYONE said “close the borders”?

Obama is the one violating his duty to uphold the law of the land by IGNORING existing immigration law. With his pen and his phone, he is doing all kinds of extra-Constitutional activities, effectively bypassing congress in the process.

At the moment, it is OBAMA who effectively has an unconstitutional monopoly on immigration policy. His policies have failed two court challenges so far and is on the way to the Supreme Court.

But we all know that the only thing Obama is interested in is pandering to new potential voters who he assumes will eventually vote Democrat.

Now back to Syria. We have NO WAY to vet them. I’ve posted a link from last month of the FBI director saying so. So far, no one has addressed that link. So perhaps you can answer me this:

Who is more qualified to have an educated opinion on our ability to EFFECTIVELY screen potential Syrian refugees? The director of the FBI? Or You and Bismark?

I’ll bet you don’t even bother to address this question because that’s what you Libtards do, you ignore things that are logically driven and make emotional arguments, appeals and straw men arguments that have no grounding in reality.

560

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Photo of the Statue of Liberty
[/quote]

Where’s the line about “potential terrorists???”[/quote]

Where’s the line about “potential German spies and saboteurs???”

Many German Jews that could have been saved were murdered by the Schutzstaffel because of such a sentiment. [/quote]

The sonnet was written in 1883… Just a WEEE bit early for German spies and saboteurs

And to invoke the systematic genocide of the Jews and relating it to THIS argument is downright disgusting. Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself for even going there. Absolutely low class argument.
[/quote]

Except it was essentially the same argument being made by some during WWII. Replace Syrians with German Jews and terrorists with spies and sabateurs. Both refugee crises were securitized.[/quote]

There are a LOT of things that could have “saved” German Jews during WWII. There was failure to act in a timely manner by EVERY SINGLE Western power out there. The United States does not have to carry the “proverbial bag of guilt” for the "failing to save the Jews. If I remember correctly WE were the ones that drove the Germans back and liberated thousands of Jews from the concentration camps.

And at the time, the Jews didn’t have a significant segment of their population that had both intentions to and a history of, BLOWING US UP!

Next weak-assed argument?

How about you address the vid I’ve posted TWICE now about the FBI director saying we do not have the ability to properly vet the Syrian refugees? Or are going to ignore that one for another few pages? I can keep posting it until it is so obvious you have no way to challenge it, or you can address it now and save us a bunch of time.