Could start by spreading the word that you are much more likely to die from a toddler shooting you than a terrorist.

Not correct, and adding the "much more" in there makes me wonder if you checked the numbers or got that statistic off a FB post ;) (no offense, I just saw the same post and checked the numbers lol)

Anyways, there is no moral high ground here. Yes fear of terrorists is overblown. There would be no need to accept refugees from many of these countries without US interference (much of that interference happened under Obama). Democrats aren't arguing that the government should stop bombing these countries, they are arguing that we should accept people cause it's the right thing to do. In other words, they want to feel good about themselves because you can be sure they don't care at all about these people. If they did, then they would care about what would happen to them after coming to the US. Consider the fact that 2/3 of Syrian refugees into Europe are barely literate or illiterate in their own languages. If they were to come to the US, you're looking at 1-2+ years before they can even speak English. If they're adults who can't write or read in English, and aren't going to school, you're looking at lifetime welfare. They couldn't even get a job as a cashier if they're illiterate and can barely speak English. So people do not care about these people coming here and being successful, they care about feeling good about themselves without donating to charity.

As far as immigrants, rather than refugees, the US has always had an extremely restrictive immigration policy, so I don't see the big deal. Meh.

Obama made some terrible decisions in the middle east. Let's face it, Obama was a gangster president. He decides that he wants to take out Assad, so he sends a bunch of money and weapons to some Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. And what happens? He fans the flames of a civil war and contributes to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions. When are these interventionists going to learn? Just leave well enough alone. You don't go destabilizing an extremely volatile area by financing an armed insurrection. It is hubris to imagine that you can insert yourself into a foreign conflict and make things better. Or look at Libya. They take out Ghaddafi and what is the obvious and predictable result? A power vacuum and the ensuing civil war as members of the regime square off with each other over who gets to pick up the pieces.

sorry, I was using the mass media definition of terrorist which the executive orders were targeting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...r/?utm_term=.209be39dff92

you got statistic-ed.

Steve Bannon used to be CEO of a World Of Warcraft gold-farming company

No idea what the mass media definition of a terrorist is :P

In 2015, since I guess that's the year you're using, 9 were killed in Charleston church, in hopes of starting a race war.
5 killed in Chattanooga, Tennessee motivated by "foreign terrorist organization propaganda".
9 killed in Roseburg, Oregon, attacker asked victims their religion before shooting.
3 killed in Colorado Springs, Colorado at Planned Parenthood clinic
14 killed at San Bernardino, California inspired by "foreign terrorist groups".

I guess the mass media definition does not include all terrorist attacks, but I'm pretty sure any reasonable person would call each one of these incidents a terror incident. Of course, there were about 30,000 killed worldwide due to terrorist attacks in 2015, so the US is extremely safe (from terror) comparatively. (And note that only a handful of people were actually killed by toddlers, usually the toddlers killed themselves, so your chances of being killed by a toddler are much, much lower)

@Meistro, 100% agree, though, Obama wasn't the first or last who has acted in stuff like that. Trump surely will do the same type of things. It would be nice if Liberals stopped harping on every single word Trump says and save it for the big stuff that matters so people will actually take them seriously when it is time to cry wolf :P

Has anyone's opinion ever changed from the debates here? Serious question.

The point isn't to convince the person you are debating it is to persuade the audience.

"Thank you for Smoking"

Then same question to audience

nope

Yes, but it has been very rare. Can recall at least once, maybe twice.


These forums are atrocious and full of negativity. However if you wade through all the crap, there actually is some good input. I often debate if it is worth wading through all the crap for, yet I still do at times.

Interesting on once or twice.

Z

/me humps DruncK

No, it's a circle jerk.

NO! ITS A CIRCLE, JERK!

now he plays golf more than obama

NO ONE plays more golf than Obama =P