There is no hypocrisy or consistency between these two totally unrelated issues. Hypocrisy and consistency depend on ones reasoning and belief constructs and if those constructs jive with each other. If I want to ban guns because I think they are ugly and if I want to ban refugees because they are ugly, there is no hypocrisy, although I would be a big fucking idiot. So perhaps you are consistent based on your reasoning, but the issues are not intrinsically linked where one view dictates consistency based on the other topic.
The premise is the gumball principle, period. If there are 200,000 gumballs and you know 3 are poison, would you eat a handful? If there are 200,000 refugees and 3 are here to commit acts of terror, would you let the 200,000 refugees in? If there are 200,000 gun owners and 3 shoot someone, would you ban the guns for all 200,000? In the last case, this is one of the main arguments in favor of banning guns. In the former case, this is one of the main arguments in favor of refusing the refugees. They are quite linked by the same reasoning (or lack thereof).
Denny walks the walk. When those timbertrolls came as refugees, he invited them to stay. But, then when they commenced their terrorism of cock pics, he made them go back to Syria, or... I mean... whatever forum they came from.
Ummmmmmmmm, we aren't forgetting the 2nd amendment when we call people hypocrites are we? Seems to be a major difference. I think someone with small children and a pitbull in the home is a moron. It's also their right. I would ban the continued breeding of them if it were allowed. But, in a free country Jethro can raise all of the pitbulls he wants and let his 3 year old girl ride them like a horse. Where is the refugee given the right to come here?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence "If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act."
Not at all forgetting about the 2nd amendment. Pointing out that it's hypocritical to say you oppose the refugees entirely because it might save one life while refusing to acknowledge the same about guns doesn't get into a constitutional discussion. If one wasn't hypocritical and felt that strongly about the refugees in that manner, I would imagine they'd be in favor of looking into changes to the constitution, however. You know, if we could save just one life and all. I'm not looking to change the constitution, before anyone wants to continue to try to assign positions to me.
How is it hypocritical to believe in the 2nd amendment which is for our citizens and oppose refugees coming here? There is a huge difference. I don't know how it got into a one life strawman because then we ban cars and junkfood and tv because it could give you a seizure. You can say the logic doesn't seem right. Like someone believing their entire religion. They aren't a hypocrite if they believe all of the conflicting shit they are taught in church. They're just dumb.
I see our misfit Governor says we will accept Refugees to Oregon. I heard on the radio yesterday of a poll that said over 65% of Oregonians were against this action. Seems about right, around the same number of States have rejected the idea. Congress has also voted to reject them by a veto proof majority (even democrats!) 289-137. I hope people remember this Governor, she needs to be scraped as soon as possible. She decides contrary with her citizens, her representatives, and her fellow Governors. Some might see leadership, I see contrarian for the sake of being contrary. This lady approve the bill to require back ground checks on the transfer of any gun. What the hell does a back ground check, check when doing a background search on a Syrian? (correction needed here. I maybe in error calling the Governor a lady. I am not sure what term to use as I do not even know what the person considers self to be) Answer: The same database the immigration authorities check to see if they have diseases, criminal records, or ties with terrorist groups, the blank relational database. The table entry with their name will be created in the US sometime after coming here. Each one will qualify for purchase of what ever armament they think they need upon entry. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/...ee-program-to-pass-by-wide-bipartisan-margin/
So, the government doesn't have any data on terrorists except the ones who have come to the US. Somehow I don't find that very believable. They might want to join a militia, I hear it is important to give them that freedom. barfo
So you think they know all about every terrorist. Want share why you think they are so smart? Also why not inform the Russian, Israelis and the French, I am sure they would like to know and are willing to take action
Those rich middle eastern prince dickheads wipe their ass with gold leaf toilet paper, why don't they take care of isis and the refugee problem? Why does it fall onto the West? We gain nothing by taking on refugees. Especially given that some in their numbers will be terrorists, and many Muslims have values that are totally contrary to our culture (and to human decency). I know many of them aren't like that, but the polls show it's a large enough percentage to be a problem. Just look at Sweden, since they've been taking in so many Muslim immigrants, they've become the rape capital of Europe.
Saudi Arabia Offers to Build 200 Mosques for Syrians in Germany https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/...s-build-200-mosques-syrians-daniel-greenfield
