Science Friction is single handed causing democrats on BGP to change to Republicans.

 

Anything that uses someones kids to take a shot at a parent is over the line. I dont blame him one bit. If you want to say something about his stance on something fine, but leave his kids out of it. Some of you would be singing a different tune if it were your kids.

 

Name one, besides Kim Davis(is she on here?). Hell, there aren't but five or six Democrats on here.

Name one, besides Kim Davis(is she on here?). Hell, there aren't but five or six Democrats on here.

 

One less now.

One less now.

 

You are a democrat?! In what way ?!

Which democrat did you vote for in 49 years because your politics fit with no democrats I know.

You are a democrat?! In what way ?!

Which democrat did you vote for in 49 years because your politics fit with no democrats I know.

 

I have only pulled 2 democratic votes in my lifetime. Will probably be the only two( maybe a local election, as the other two were local). Just saying people can be turned off to non sense and one has. As to who that is, if they want you to know I am sure they would tell you. :thumb:

It ain't me. Science Friction is easily one of my favorite posters on here. By far.

 

And I'll always be a democrat.

You are a democrat?! In what way ?!

Which democrat did you vote for in 49 years because your politics fit with no democrats I know.

 

I'm registered a Democrat. I used to be a dirty footed, tree hugging, hippie liberal. Heck, I voted for the second worst President ever, Jimmy Carter. (Jimmy loves Barry) Cast 2 votes for Bill Clinton. Then I grew up and learned how to think for myself. Never have changed my registration.

Heck, even I didn't cast two votes for Bill Clinton. Gotten more liberal as I've gotten older.

I don't think the cartoonist was being racist in his message. He was trying to point out hypocrisy (alleged or imagined by some) in Bevin's stance by alluding to a statement made by President O'Bama. Some of the details are ironic but its overall message misses the mark. The comparison just does not work. Surely, the cartoonist, the LHL, Mr. Bevin, and all of us are able to see that adopting children from Ethiopia or any other country is not the same as allowing thousands of refugees to enter our country from a region that is fostering terrorism, is at war with itself, and from which avowed terrorists have said it is their intention to infiltrate the country among legitimate refugees.

 

I think the fact that the French terrorists were born in France is quite to the point. Their parents immigrated to France but did not become "French." Instead, their sympathies lie elsewhere. They raised them in a population that does not consider itself French and fosters hostility towards the West and is easily influenced by radicals in the homeland, like ISIS. It doesn't take many to create a dangerous situation. These people do not have the scruples we have in the West against killing non-combatants, women, and children. Therefore, there is very little one can do to stop violence once they are settled in the West and living here, sometimes for a matter of years, before they act out. Innocent people die at the hands of someone who does not care that this is their neighbor. They go to such lengths that they are willing to strap explosives on a woman who is willing to kill herself and others as a result.

 

It is risky to allow refugees to come to this country under such circumstances. That does not mean we should not receive them, though I am not arguing that issue now. However, we should not pretend it is without risk. Neither should a politician. It is risky. And if you think we should receive the refugees here, make your argument for how it may be done safely.

 

I think a better analogy of circumstances occurred when the ebola virus was the big news. Do we accept people here from those countries where this was a high risk or do we turn them away? What type of vetting was necessary to insure that the virus did not spread to our population. This is far closer to the situation we now have with allowing refugees into our country. Most of them are victims and are not carriers of terrorism. How do we keep out those who are either active terrorists now or not terrorists now but are carriers of the terrorist "virus" that may show up later? It is much harder to determine one's ideology than it is to detect if they carry a disease. How does this impact our decision to receive refugees?

 

In my opinion, the cartoon is in poor taste for using Bevin's children to make a point, as has been stated by others

(much more briefly ; ). It also falls short intellectually in its attempt to send a message with irony. There is no similarity between adopting children from a country of great need and allowing entrance to thousands of refugees from a known hotbed for radicals.

 

Bevin's children, btw, are being raised by Bevin to love this country and are being instilled with his values as a parent. This is different than what often happens in areas in Europe where entire neighborhoods do not share the values of the country they live in but strive to recreate the values of the land they come from.

Edited November 20, 201510 yr by oldgrappler
added Bevin's values paragraph

I don't think the cartoonist was being racist in his message. He was trying to point out hypocrisy (alleged or imagined by some) in Bevin's stance by alluding to a statement made by President O'Bama. Some of the details are ironic but its overall message misses the mark. The comparison just does not work. Surely, the cartoonist, the LHL, Mr. Bevin, and all of us are able to see that adopting children from Ethiopia or any other country is not the same as allowing thousands of refugees to enter our country from a region that is fostering terrorism, is at war with itself, and from which avowed terrorists have said it is their intention to infiltrate the country among legitimate refugees.

 

I think the fact that the French terrorists were born in France is quite to the point. Their parents immigrated to France but did not become "French." Instead, their sympathies lie elsewhere. They raised them in a population that does not consider itself French and fosters hostility towards the West and is easily influenced by radicals in the homeland, like ISIS. It doesn't take many to create a dangerous situation. These people do not have the scruples we have in the West against killing non-combatants, women, and children. Therefore, there is very little one can do to stop violence once they are settled in the West and living here, sometimes for a matter of years, before they act out. Innocent people die at the hands of someone who does not care that this is their neighbor. They go to such lengths that they are willing to strap explosives on a woman who is willing to kill herself and others as a result.

 

It is risky to allow refugees to come to this country under such circumstances. That does not mean we should not receive them, though I am not arguing that issue now. However, we should not pretend it is without risk. Neither should a politician. It is risky. And if you think we should receive the refugees here, make your argument for how it may be done safely.

 

I think a better analogy of circumstances occurred when the ebola virus was the big news. Do we accept people here from those countries where this was a high risk or do we turn them away? What type of vetting was necessary to insure that the virus did not spread to our population. This is far closer to the situation we now have with allowing refugees into our country. Most of them are victims and are not carriers of terrorism. How do we keep out those who are either active terrorists now or not terrorists now but are carriers of the terrorist "virus" that may show up later? It is much harder to determine one's ideology than it is to detect if they carry a disease. How does this impact our decision to receive refugees?

 

In my opinion, the cartoon is in poor taste for using Bevin's children to make a point, as has been stated by others

(much more briefly ; ). It also falls short intellectually in its attempt to send a message with irony. There is no similarity between adopting children from a country of great need and allowing entrance to thousands of refugees from a known hotbed for radicals.

 

This, in essence, is what I was saying.

 

My "offensive" radar isn't the best because I never get offended, so whatever with respect to that. I just think the message the cartoonist was trying to send was futile.

not just futile, but wrong-headed and inept. He failed because he tried to draw a correlation between two things that are dissimilar in important ways, the very ways necessary for him to be able to make his point.

 

Therefore, rather than being a legitimate intellectual challenge to Bevin's position, it was merely a partisan cheap shot.

Pett has a point. If you are going to use the kids as props in your election, you opened the door for some attention.

 

Every political ad that runs in the state seems to show the guy or gal with their family.

 

So that makes every kid fair game?

One less now.

 

 

I've done a good job for my party then.

I have only pulled 2 democratic votes in my lifetime. Will probably be the only two( maybe a local election, as the other two were local). Just saying people can be turned off to non sense and one has. As to who that is, if they want you to know I am sure they would tell you. :thumb:

 

 

You are so mysterious, Mr James. LOL

Every political ad that runs in the state seems to show the guy or gal with their family.

 

So that makes every kid fair game?

 

I clearly remember Bill Clinton having Chelsea on stage with him in all her unruly haired and buck toothed adolescence. Was she fair game?

 

I remember the big issue Obama made about getting a hypoallergenic dog for his little girl and them being on stage with him at his coronation. Are they fair game?

You are so mysterious, Mr James. LOL

 

Thanks Friction. But I will say, not everyone posts in here that reads this board. There is a clue for you Sherlock.