Governors all across the country are refusing to take Syrian refugees

[Anonymous]

France is taking 30,000 more refugees over the next two years. 6,000 more than previously promised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are these governors doing to ensure that suspected terrorists in their own states aren't able to buy guns legally? I wish Chris Christie would talk more about that and less about the threats posed by 3 year-old orphans.

The problem is not want the refugees will do today or tomorrow but the concern for me is that they will become radicalized down the road, as they have done so in Belgium, France, and Germany. Belgium has the most nationals fighting Isis of any European country. The parents are fine but the kids are easily radicalized and this is a problem down the road. Statistically this is very likely to happen.

White American kids are becoming radicalized too...do we deport all teenagers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are these governors doing to ensure that suspected terrorists in their own states aren't able to buy guns legally? I wish Chris Christie would talk more about that and less about the threats posed by 3 year-old orphans.

I'm for more gun control, too, but your making light of the issue isn't helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How very Christian of them.

Religion isn't allowed in governance.

You'll be opening your home to refugees, I am sure.

NP. We only have one small guest room and a tight budget, but I would take in a Syrian refugee family in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, if people want to trot out the line of "we have enough of our own problems to deal with" as an excuse then I expect you to actually pick up, join in and start dealing with our problems, not just hold it up as an excuse and then drop it again the moment people are no longer talking about Syrian refugees.

You don't get to use it as an excuse if you aren't actually dealing with it. That's disingenuous and dishonest.

I am dealing with it in the form of significant taxes and a 19 trillion dollar deficit being passed to my children.

That's the debt, not the deficit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

I am agnostic. No refugees. We have enough shit going on. You are more than welcome to house and feed them at your home. You know, like Jesus would do.

Agree
And don't trot out the Christian line when it's convenient.

This sums it up. You don't get to call yourselves Christian, you are hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

It seems that many of you confuse Christians with suckas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How very Christian of them.

Religion isn't allowed in governance.

You'll be opening your home to refugees, I am sure.

NP. We only have one small guest room and a tight budget, but I would take in a Syrian refugee family in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.

You're full of shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

I am agnostic. No refugees. We have enough shit going on. You are more than welcome to house and feed them at your home. You know, like Jesus would do.

Agree
And don't trot out the Christian line when it's convenient.

This sums it up. You don't get to call yourselves Christian, you are hypocrites.

I know I am getting off topic here, and I do agree that these people should be helped, but what I don't understand is why poor, desperate people around the world have so many kids they can't feed. It is really not fair to the kids to grow up without food and other basic resources. Perhaps the women just have no choice. Sad.

[Anonymous]

No access to birth control. No concept of control over one's reproductive behavior. No choice, because the husband won't cooperate. It's a real problem.

But I insist. We have enough of this here. No need to import more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How very Christian of them.

Religion isn't allowed in governance.

You'll be opening your home to refugees, I am sure.

NP. We only have one small guest room and a tight budget, but I would take in a Syrian refugee family in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.

You're full of shit.

No, just an unabashed bleeding heart liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

I am agnostic. No refugees. We have enough shit going on. You are more than welcome to house and feed them at your home. You know, like Jesus would do.

Agree
And don't trot out the Christian line when it's convenient.

This sums it up. You don't get to call yourselves Christian, you are hypocrites.

I know I am getting off topic here, and I do agree that these people should be helped, but what I don't understand is why poor, desperate people around the world have so many kids they can't feed. It is really not fair to the kids to grow up without food and other basic resources. Perhaps the women just have no choice. Sad.

Most probably had no trouble feeding their children before the war, which was precipitated by a devastating, historic drought. (And this is why the military has been studying and planning for the effects of climate change.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK fine. we decide we can't take in refugees because we can't adequately screen them.

But I don't want to hear any more about us being a "Christina nation". Rejecting refugees is *not* what Jesus would do.

We have to decide to be OK with that. That we are going to be selfish, self interested, preemptively defend ourselves.... not Christlike.

Don't be hypocrites. Be honest. We are not truly Christian. We are selectively Christian. Cafeteria Christian.

I am agnostic. No refugees. We have enough shit going on. You are more than welcome to house and feed them at your home. You know, like Jesus would do.

Agree
And don't trot out the Christian line when it's convenient.

This sums it up. You don't get to call yourselves Christian, you are hypocrites.

I know I am getting off topic here, and I do agree that these people should be helped, but what I don't understand is why poor, desperate people around the world have so many kids they can't feed. It is really not fair to the kids to grow up without food and other basic resources. Perhaps the women just have no choice. Sad.

Most probably had no trouble feeding their children before the war, which was precipitated by a devastating, historic drought. (And this is why the military has been studying and planning for the effects of climate change.)

Interesting angle. Can you point to some background articles on the drought?

[Anonymous]

^^ It had much more to do with a brutal and ruthless leader, Assad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ It had much more to do with a brutal and ruthless leader, Assad.

Obviously a strong factor. But it wouldn't be the first time in history that a dictator had lost his grip owing to a natural disaster, and it would be interesting to understand this, if true.