Doesn't the Prez have more important things to do than play on the computer! :jump:

 

Golf course must have been closed today :banana:

Thanks for the added information, but that I have my doubts that a system, of any type, is able to pick out potential terrorists based on facial signatures. Because average refugees are being pressure into terrorism every day (ie: ISIS holding a family hostage and threatening death if the other family memeber doesn't join) I just fail to see how a data base will be able to keep up with every new potential terror suspect.

 

I don't think I am conveying what I want in the way I want, but I am going to throw out a hypothetical situation to more clearly describe my concerns. For example, if ISIS took my family hostage and forced me into terrorism, the government would have no knowledge of this. How would they be knowing to look for me on surveillance?

 

I am sure there are more levels to the system they are intending on using, but I have my concerns about the rate in which any system is able to keep up with the fluidity of terrorism.

 

I understand what you are saying. I also understand your concerns. They are legitimate concerns as well. Especially with our track record of combating terrorism in the US. Like ColonelCrazy I don't know what the middle ground is. I do like the idea and approach Obama is taking. I just hope he knows what he is doing.

He needs me on his payroll. The guys he has working for him suck big time.

 

Who's fault is that?

I thought if the President himself tweets it will be signed "-bo."

 

I'd assume the above tweets were by his Twitter/social media manager.

I know the term concentration camp has a very negative connotation. But would this be a ridiculous solution? I for one think that a quick and flighty "screening" and just releasing them into our land is ridiculous. But turning them away is against what our country is about and is inhumane. Obviously the camps would be a secure , safe and comfortable environment. I'm sure a concentration camp would be costly but so is cleaning up disasters, not to mention lives that could be saved.

 

I guess these thoughts are kindof a waste to think about, they're already loose among us...

Edited November 18, 201510 yr by Birdman98

Who's fault is that?

 

Definitely his fault but in all fairness I didn't do myself any favors by living with the mantra "hey, hey, hey smoke weed everyday" while in college.

I know the term concentration camp has a very negative connotation. But would this be a ridiculous solution? I for one think that a quick and flighty "screening" and just releasing them into our land is ridiculous. But turning them away is against what our country is about and is inhumane. Obviously the camps would be a secure , safe and comfortable environment. I'm sure a concentration camp would be costly but so is cleaning up disasters, not to mention lives that could be saved.

 

Maybe a good start would be calling them something else the next time you pitch this idea...

Maybe a good start would be calling them something else the next time you pitch this idea...

 

Concentration Communities? Refugee Safe Spaces?

Refugee Safe Spaces?

 

Ok that one got me good.

 

:lol2:

Maybe a good start would be calling them something else the next time you pitch this idea...

 

For sure. I think the technical term for what would be is concentration camp though right? Refugee Safe Spaces it is... RSSs.

The Obama Administration’s extreme caution about engagement in Syria led it to insist on such a thorough process of vetting potential Syrian allies that years of effort and tens of millions of dollars resulted in only a paltry handful of people being found acceptable to receive American weapons and training. The refugee vetting process won’t be nearly this thorough;

I don't know the answer.

 

Just finished a chapter with my religion students on the Good Samaritan, social justice and Anne Frank. Apparently before the Nazis invaded the Netherlands, Anne Frank's father wrote to the United States government several times, asking for asylum for his family. His letters were ignored.

 

Makes me look at the Syrian Refuge situation in a different way.

I thought if the President himself tweets it will be signed "-bo."

 

I'd assume the above tweets were by his Twitter/social media manager.

 

To show solidarity with the French in the wake of the attacks his Twitter signature is now "-Beau"

@POTUS: Protecting the American people is my top priority. With our 65 global partners, we're leading the campaign to degrade and destroy ISIL.

 

@POTUS: We also win this fight with our values. America can ensure our own security while welcoming refugees desperately seeking safety from ISIL.

 

@POTUS: We will provide refuge to at least 10,000 refugees fleeing violence in Syria over the next year after they pass the highest security checks.

 

@POTUS: Here, our focus is giving safe haven to the most vulnerable Syrians – women, children, and survivors of torture.

 

You may be surprised but as a conservative Christian I lean in the direction of the President on this one. I would like to hear more on how we can successfully vet refugees coming into this country. I think the POTUS will help his cause if he would communicate in detail about this instead of taking shots at Republicans for being afraid of women and children, though that makes for a good sound bite.

 

As has been pointed out, we've not been real successful at some things we've tried, like Fast and Furious in which the Justice Department gave arms to Mexico hoping to track them to the Mexican drug cartel. I don't have a lot of faith in our government's ability to actually do an effective job of vetting refugees. And the stakes are pretty high.

 

But I do agree with President Obama in wanting to uphold the values we have as a nation to receive those who are oppressed and suffering. This is why I was vocal about using torture in the past to gain information from POWs. That violates are values.

 

So I need to hear more about how we can receive refugees in a way that does not place high risk to American citizens.