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

C'mon now - There are more mod's than that on here . :lol2::lol2::lol2:

And for the record . Pond scum > Joel Pett

The Governor Elect called in to Kentucky Sports Radio today and thanked Matt and Ryan for ripping Joel Pett. Was funny. Ryan was calling for Pett to be fired.

C'mon now - There are more mod's than that on here . :lol2::lol2::lol2:

 

I'm a registered Independent.

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.

 

I have always felt that children should not be part of the political debate, period, so I most certainly think that this cartoon is out of line.

 

I do find part of your post puzzling, however. You mention that the cartoon falls short intellectually in its comparison of adopted kids vs. refugees. However, that was after you made an analogy between bringing known infected Ebola patients to the US and bringing in vetted refugees...as if this would be the same thing. That analogy is just as bad as the one the cartoon implies.

 

Also, I'm curious as to how you know how Mr. Bevin is raising his children.

I have always felt that children should not be part of the political debate, period, so I most certainly think that this cartoon is out of line.

 

I do find part of your post puzzling, however. You mention that the cartoon falls short intellectually in its comparison of adopted kids vs. refugees. However, that was after you made an analogy between bringing known infected Ebola patients to the US and bringing in vetted refugees...as if this would be the same thing. That analogy is just as bad as the one the cartoon implies.

 

Also, I'm curious as to how you know how Mr. Bevin is raising his children.

 

Thanks for the question. I disagree with you. I believe what I said on all accounts stands.

 

1. Regarding adopted children vs Refugee population: Bringing a small number of adopted children into the country and having them live in your house, under your supervision, learning your values, is quite different than inviting thousands of people into the country, who after they have entered will have very little supervision, and will not share American values, and could possibly adhere to radical views. This is where the cartoon breaks down because it implied if Bevins were consistent then he would be afraid of his adopted children just as the cartoonist presumes he is afraid of the children of refugees. That's wrong-headed.

 

2. Regarding the analogy comparing Refugees to the situation with the Ebola scare: This actually works on several levels. Ebola infected a limited number of people who were from certain African countries where I know some folks who are residents. The issue at that time was how to contain the virus and keep it from infecting the general population in the United States. You cannot tell who has early stages of the infection by looking at them. To keep the general population safe you had to limit access to the US from those African countries and assume that anyone from there was a possile carrier. Those who wished to come to the States needed to be tested for the ebola virus (a type of vetting). There was a scare when it was learned that one person infected by the virus was on a plane and landed in the US prior to knowledge that he was infected. The approach used was to contain the infected population to their own area, test any who wished to travel elsewhere, and deny access to those who were found to be infected.

 

This is what we are talking about with the refugees from Syria. There is a threat to them in their homeland (like ebola threatened the Africans). We need to limit access to the United States until people can be properly vetted. You cannot tell who is of terrorist leanings and who is not by looking at them. There must be a way to vet them before allowing them to enter the general population of the US. This is simply recognizing there is a risk, and that risk must be reduced or eliminated before exposing the general population to it. I think the analogy is a good one. It does not say whether refugees should be allowed into the US or not. It simply illustrates that there is a risk and a threat that is not easily identified. Measures need to be developed to insure the safety of the general population of the US. I think it is a good analogy, whereas the cartoon was aimed at making Bevins look foolish and it failed--IMO.

 

3. Regarding how Bevins raises his children: I am giving Bevins the benefit of the doubt. As a publis servant, he presumably is looking out for the general welfare of the US. He will raise his children to love this country and not raise them to hate the US or blame the US for the many long-standing problems in the ME. Neither will he raise them with the worldview of a radical from the ME. These are assumptions on my part. I think they are relatively safe assumptions. I am thinking the best of Bevins.

C'mon now - There are more mod's than that on here . :lol2::lol2::lol2:

 

A majority of posters are conservative leaning on this board , but a majority of the Moderators are liberal leaning.

 

I've always wondered if that's why a few posters get away with some offensive posts because deep down a moderator or two may agree but know they can't post it.

Thanks for the question. I disagree with you. I believe what I said on all accounts stands.

 

1. Regarding adopted children vs Refugee population: Bringing a small number of adopted children into the country and having them live in your house, under your supervision, learning your values, is quite different than inviting thousands of people into the country, who after they have entered will have very little supervision, and will not share American values, and could possibly adhere to radical views. This is where the cartoon breaks down because it implied if Bevins were consistent then he would be afraid of his adopted children just as the cartoonist presumes he is afraid of the children of refugees. That's wrong-headed.

 

2. Regarding the analogy comparing Refugees to the situation with the Ebola scare: This actually works on several levels. Ebola infected a limited number of people who were from certain African countries where I know some folks who are residents. The issue at that time was how to contain the virus and keep it from infecting the general population in the United States. You cannot tell who has early stages of the infection by looking at them. To keep the general population safe you had to limit access to the US from those African countries and assume that anyone from there was a possile carrier. Those who wished to come to the States needed to be tested for the ebola virus (a type of vetting). There was a scare when it was learned that one person infected by the virus was on a plane and landed in the US prior to knowledge that he was infected. The approach used was to contain the infected population to their own area, test any who wished to travel elsewhere, and deny access to those who were found to be infected.

 

This is what we are talking about with the refugees from Syria. There is a threat to them in their homeland (like ebola threatened the Africans). We need to limit access to the United States until people can be properly vetted. You cannot tell who is of terrorist leanings and who is not by looking at them. There must be a way to vet them before allowing them to enter the general population of the US. This is simply recognizing there is a risk, and that risk must be reduced or eliminated before exposing the general population to it. I think the analogy is a good one. It does not say whether refugees should be allowed into the US or not. It simply illustrates that there is a risk and a threat that is not easily identified. Measures need to be developed to insure the safety of the general population of the US. I think it is a good analogy, whereas the cartoon was aimed at making Bevins look foolish and it failed--IMO.

 

3. Regarding how Bevins raises his children: I am giving Bevins the benefit of the doubt. As a publis servant, he presumably is looking out for the general welfare of the US. He will raise his children to love this country and not raise them to hate the US or blame the US for the many long-standing problems in the ME. Neither will he raise them with the worldview of a radical from the ME. These are assumptions on my part. I think they are relatively safe assumptions. I am thinking the best of Bevins.

 

 

Thanks for the replies.

 

Correct me if I am misinterpreting you, but it would seem as if you are comparing those known to be infected with Ebola as an analogy for refugees as if they are known to be "infected" with radical views.

 

Further, you are willing to admit to not knowing how Governor-elect Bevin raised his children, but assume it to be to "love this country and not blame the US" but are willing to make the assumption that refugee parents, who would have been saved from the terrorism IN the ME, would raise their children with radical views against the country that saved them. All of that just seems very biased to me.

A majority of posters are conservative leaning on this board , but a majority of the Moderators are liberal leaning.

 

I've always wondered if that's why a few posters get away with some offensive posts because deep down a moderator or two may agree but know they can't post it.

 

For what it is worth I am on the right but admit I think the left has better ideas on many issues.

 

My point is, at the end of the day if anyone thinks moderation of this forum is an issue for whatever reason(s) I strongly encourage you to contact me and be specific.

 

Also, as many of you probably realize, we try to be hands off in this forum more than any other forum. That doesn't mean personal attacks are okay, but really strong opinions are okay.

For what it is worth I am on the right but admit I think the left has better ideas on many issues.

 

My point is, at the end of the day if anyone thinks moderation of this forum is an issue for whatever reason(s) I strongly encourage you to contact me and be specific.

 

Also, as many of you probably realize, we try to be hands off in this forum more than any other forum. That doesn't mean personal attacks are okay, but really strong opinions are okay.

 

I live by the motto " Snitches get stitches"

I live by the motto " Snitches get stitches"

 

Thanks for the replies.

 

Correct me if I am misinterpreting you, but it would seem as if you are comparing those known to be infected with Ebola as an analogy for refugees as if they are known to be "infected" with radical views.

 

Further, you are willing to admit to not knowing how Governor-elect Bevin raised his children, but assume it to be to "love this country and not blame the US" but are willing to make the assumption that refugee parents, who would have been saved from the terrorism IN the ME, would raise their children with radical views against the country that saved them. All of that just seems very biased to me.

 

I think you are misunderstanding me but perhaps not. I will try to clarify and then you decide if this what you understood me to say.

 

I am comparing the ebola virus to terrorists and the radical ideology that produces terrorism. I am not comparing the refugees to the ebola virus. The refugees are victims of radicalism and terrorism and need aid just as the people of Liberia and Guinea were victims of an outbreak of the ebola virus and needed humanitarian aid.

 

The similarity between ebola and terrorist ideology is that it cannot be seen and cannot be detected without screening. It can "hide" among a larger population. In the case of terrorism, it can hide among the greater Syrian refugee population. In the case of ebola, it hid among the general population of the people of Guinea and Liberia in West Africa.

 

HAd it been proposed that we start flying thousands of Liberians to the US because of the danger of being infected by ebola if they remained in Liberia, there would have been a large out cry, and in fact, there was an out cry when some individuals came from that country to the US. There was a call for stringent screening and testing and ensuring that the ebola virus not spread to the US. No politician would propose that we transport thousands of Liberians to the US. They recognized the inherent risk, even though, perhaps a vast majority of Liberians who would be tested would be found to be free from the ebola crisis and did not pose a risk to others.

 

There is a similar risk with bringing Syrian refugees to the US. Though a high percentage of them are not radicals and not terrorists, there is the real possibility that those who hold to a terrorist ideology may infiltrate the ranks of the refugees. In fact, they have stated that this was their intention and I think I read where some have already been found to be among them. Though the majority of the Syrian refugees are victims of war and need humanitarian help, there is danger in opening up the doors and bringing them here. Like testing everyone for the ebola crisis, there must be a proven way to vet the refugees before bringing them here. So I am not comparing refugees to the ebola virus. I am comparing the population of Syrians to the population of Liberia and Guinea and saying that the terrorist virus is hiding in the general population and therefore represents a risk to bring them to the US in the same manner as it would be risky to transport Liberians here during the height of the ebola outbreak.

 

In another thread, I stated that my leanings are toward President Obama's desire to provide refuge to the Syrian refugees but I acknowledge the risk in doing so and urge caution for the sake of the citizens of the US. I would like to see open discussion of the proposed screening and vetting process because it is much harder to detect what one thinks (as in their ideology) than it is to detect a physical disease that caused by the ebola virus. It is a much more difficult thing that the President is proposing and it seems that many are downplaying the risk involved, including our President.

 

Regarding Bevins: I am making a rather modest proposal here. I do not need to know exactly how he is raising his kids. I am merely making an assumption about him. It is an assumption I would hope people on BGP would make concerning me since, I too, am a parent. I assume Blevins, as an American, is not indoctrinating his children to hate the US or become terrorists. He adopted children and will raise them according to the value system of his family. There may be a lot of things I dislike about his value system, but I think it is safe to assume, as a public servant-elect, he has goodwill toward America. His adopted children will become Americanized. Blevins can assure this since he is responsible for the manner in which his adopted children will be raised. One cannot assure that children of refugees will be raised with a general pro-America outlook.

 

Now, if you read my first post, I discussed how in Europe you find populations of people who do not become acclimated to the culture of the country where they immigrated, like in France, for instance. I have read where there are neighborhoods in France and England and Belgium, etc. where sharia law is practiced and local law enforcement does not venture without very good reason and back up. These areas are known to include those with radical ideology who foster sympathy for the terrorist organizations. I do not believe that this is true of the majority of refugees from Syria or even a large number. But I do think it is likely it is true of some of them. Therefore, indiscriminate reception of all refugees is quite risky. In fact, it is not being called for by either side. All are saying that the refugee population needs to be vetted. We just aren't hearing much about how that will be done.

 

So my point is, that it is safe to assume Blevins will not raise his kids to become anti-American terrorists, while it is not wise to assume that every parent in the refugee population will be as pro-American and harmless as Blevins. That is one reason the cartoonist failed in his comparison. It is known that terrorists intend to infiltrate the refugee population.

 

I am afraid I am multiplying words now without adding more clarity. This is as plain as I can put it for now. Hopefully, we have successfully communicated.

 

If I have failed at my attempt, please ask clarifying questions. That helps to see where the lack of communication is occurring and can be addressed. Please understand that I do not think you must agree with me. You may have a different point of view you wish to express. That is called dialogue and is a good thing.

 

And i still think the cartoonist missed the mark in his portrayal of Bevins and his intended message. And I am not necessarily saying I agree with Blevins decision.

A majority of posters are conservative leaning on this board , but a majority of the Moderators are liberal leaning.

 

I've always wondered if that's why a few posters get away with some offensive posts because deep down a moderator or two may agree but know they can't post it.

 

Some people are better with wordplay than others.

 

And a majority of the moderators are conservative. They just don't post in this forum like the left leaning ones do. I know of 3 left leaning mods. The rest I believe are conservative leaning.

Your new avatar makes me laugh every time I see it . Go Big Blue