Killing innocent people isn't a religious right.


It makes it fanaticism.


Go over to Iran and open up a nice Catholic church and see how long it takes before you're swinging from a rope.


There are ALREADY areas in the US where citizens are warned not to go due to this very thing. Dearborn, MI leads the list.

I didn't say it was? I said you can't dictate religion from the state that's a dangerous path no one should want to journey down. Syria is a threat so we say no one from Syria is going to be accepted. Saying we require you to not participate in blank religion is giving the state the power to dictate religion, I don't care if it's only for x people you show me the last time it stopped there and ill concede your point.


What the state dictates it controls, what the state controls it owns. Look past the here and now and see the danger beyond.

---

I would gladly accept a Coptic from Egypt but would reject a Muslim from the same country. Ditto an Israeli Jew vs. a "Palestinian" from the same area. It's unrealistic to believe that we are at war with countries, we're at war with an extremist religion. At this time I would not accept a Muslim of any type without deep vetting of his/her background.

 

75 million tourists visited the United States in 2014.   If we want to interview every one of them, and ask them all these questions about their religious views, and do a background check on them, because terrorists aren't going to answer the questions honestly anyway, how much will it cost in manpower and money?  

 

I've seen estimates that the average foreign tourist spends about $7,000 in the United States.   Multiply that by 75 million tourists, and the total spending by foreign tourists in the United States is about $500 billion.  If we submit every tourist to extreme vetting, what impact will this have on tourism to the United States? 

 

All these proposals should go through a thorough cost-benefit analysis.  Wouldn't you agree? 

---

75 million tourists visited the United States in 2014.   If we want to interview every one of them, and ask them all these questions about their religious views, and do a background check on them, because terrorists aren't going to answer the questions honestly anyway, how much will it cost in manpower and money?  

 

I've seen estimates that the average foreign tourist spends about $7,000 in the United States.   Multiply that by 75 million tourists, and the total spending by foreign tourists in the United States is about $500 billion.  If we submit every tourist to extreme vetting, what impact will this have on tourism to the United States? 

 

All these proposals should go through a thorough cost-benefit analysis.  Wouldn't you agree? 

 

There's a difference between immigrants and tourists.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

75 million tourists visited the United States in 2014. If we want to interview every one of them, and ask them all these questions about their religious views, and do a background check on them, because terrorists aren't going to answer the questions honestly anyway, how much will it cost in manpower and money?


I've seen estimates that the average foreign tourist spends about $7,000 in the United States. Multiply that by 75 million tourists, and the total spending by foreign tourists in the United States is about $500 billion. If we submit every tourist to extreme vetting, what impact will this have on tourism to the United States?


All these proposals should go through a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Wouldn't you agree?

They would only vet the ones that look a certain way.

---

There's a difference between immigrants and tourists.

 

I know the difference, but why would you only go after the half a million legal immigrants and ignore the 75 million tourists who come into the US every year?  

 

The 9/11 hijackers came here on student visas.   And actually, some had expired visas, just like a lot of people who come here as tourists and blend into the country and never go home.  If you want to protect the country from religious extremists, you can't restrict yourself to legal immigrants.  

---

They would only vet the ones that look a certain way.

Yeah, just the ones that look like you.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

75 million tourists visited the United States in 2014. If we want to interview every one of them, and ask them all these questions about their religious views, and do a background check on them, because terrorists aren't going to answer the questions honestly anyway, how much will it cost in manpower and money?


I've seen estimates that the average foreign tourist spends about $7,000 in the United States. Multiply that by 75 million tourists, and the total spending by foreign tourists in the United States is about $500 billion. If we submit every tourist to extreme vetting, what impact will this have on tourism to the United States?


All these proposals should go through a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely. But the costs being paid in Europe right now are more than I'm willing to pay.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I know the difference, but why would you only go after the half a million legal immigrants and ignore the 75 million tourists who come into the US every year?  

 

The 9/11 hijackers came here on student visas.   And actually, some had expired visas, just like a lot of people who come here as tourists and blend into the country and never go home.  If you want to protect the country from religious extremists, you can't restrict yourself to legal immigrants.

The point is that we don't ignore them now and we should be more vigilant about those who come here illegally and those who overstay their welcome.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The point is that we don't ignore them now and we should be more vigilant about those who come here illegally and those who overstay their welcome.

 

Yes, absolutely, we should be more vigilant.   But my question is, given that there are about 75 million foreigners who legally come into the country every year, and given that a person who comes in bent on terrorism isn't going to answer questions honestly if it means he'd get filtered out, then how exactly does this vetting that is being advocated work, and at what cost? 

 

75,000,000 / 365 = 205,000 people per day entering the country.  What kind of bureaucracy would have to be set up at what cost in order to do background checks on 205,000 people per day?  

 

I know we don't want to kill the tourism industry.   Foreign tourists bring in about $500 billion a year. 

 

You say the cost being paid right now in Europe is more than you are willing to pay.   I'm sure you mean the cost of not doing anything.   How much are you willing to pay?   Put it on a per person basis.   Say we have about 100 million taxpayers in the United States right now.  Do you feel so endangered right now that you are willing to send the government an extra, say, $500 a year to process all these background checks we'd have to do to vet all these tourists? 

 

Before we embark on some giant government program like this, I want to know what they're going to do, and how much it's going to cost.  (Not to mention, whether it's even going to work.)

---

Yes, absolutely, we should be more vigilant. But my question is, given that there are about 75 million foreigners who legally come into the country every year, and given that a person who comes in bent on terrorism isn't going to answer questions honestly if it means he'd get filtered out, then how exactly does this vetting that is being advocated work, and at what cost?


75,000,000 / 365 = 205,000 people per day entering the country. What kind of bureaucracy would have to be set up at what cost in order to do background checks on 205,000 people per day?


I know we don't want to kill the tourism industry. Foreign tourists bring in about $500 billion a year.


You say the cost being paid right now in Europe is more than you are willing to pay. I'm sure you mean the cost of not doing anything. How much are you willing to pay? Put it on a per person basis. Say we have about 100 million taxpayers in the United States right now. Do you feel so endangered right now that you are willing to send the government an extra, say, $500 a year to process all these background checks we'd have to do to vet all these tourists?


Before we embark on some giant government program like this, I want to know what they're going to do, and how much it's going to cost. (Not to mention, whether it's even going to work.)

If your own son or daughter were killed in a domestic terrorist attack, how much (on a per person basis) would you be willng to pay, in retrospect, to reduce the odds of such an attack happening?

---

"We believe in victory!"   - Gus Bradley
"I don't want to believe.  I want to know."   - Carl Sagan

If your own son or daughter were killed in a domestic terrorist attack, how much (on a per person basis) would you be willng to pay, in retrospect, to reduce the odds of such an attack happening?

 

If your son or daughter were killed in a car crash, how much (on a per person basis) would you be willing to pay, in retrospect, to reduce the odds of such a crash happening? 

 

We can apply the same question to a whole lot of things that are much more likely to occur than a domestic terrorist attack.   And we do ask that question, every day of our lives.   We make choices based on risk.  We don't ban guns, we don't ban cars, we let convicted felons out of prisons, we eat red meat, we fly on airplanes, we swim in the ocean, we do a whole bunch of things that are much more likely to kill us than a domestic terror attack.  Because we apply some cost-benefit standard to these questions. 

 

We don't dig a hole and crawl into it or put our son or daughter into it to protect them.   Self-protection does not trump living our lives in freedom.   We make that choice every single day.  Sure, we can apply more perfect protection to ourselves, but at what cost?  

---

If your son or daughter were killed in a car crash, how much (on a per person basis) would you be willing to pay, in retrospect, to reduce the odds of such a crash happening?


We can apply the same question to a whole lot of things that are much more likely to occur than a domestic terrorist attack. And we do ask that question, every day of our lives. We make choices based on risk. We don't ban guns, we don't ban cars, we let convicted felons out of prisons, we eat red meat, we fly on airplanes, we swim in the ocean, we do a whole bunch of things that are much more likely to kill us than a domestic terror attack. Because we apply some cost-benefit standard to these questions.


We don't dig a hole and crawl into it or put our son or daughter into it to protect them. Self-protection does not trump living our lives in freedom. We make that choice every single day. Sure, we can apply more perfect protection to ourselves, but at what cost?

I get your argument but you're leaving out one glaring difference; guns, cars, airplanes, and red meat are not in active collusion to murder us.

---

I get your argument but you're leaving out one glaring difference; guns, cars, airplanes, and red meat are not in active collusion to murder us.

 

 

 

Of course there's a difference, but my point is, how much are we willing to pay for this added safety?  We make cost-benefit comparisons on a whole bunch of stuff every day that could possibly add to our safety, and we make decisions on how much we are willing to pay, in money, in convenience, and in Constitutional rights.  There are 300 million people in the United States, and maybe 10 every year (since 2001) are killed in domestic terrorist attacks.   That is a 1 in 30 million chance that you or your loved ones will be killed by a terrorist.   Are you willing to pay $500?  $1,000?  to reduce those odds?   I'm not. 

 

More Americans are killed by lightning every year than by terrorists.  You are 35,000 times more likely to die of heart disease than by a terrorist attack.  You are 33,000 times more likely to die of cancer.   Would you take the aforementioned $500 or $1,000 per taxpayer and use it to cure cancer?  Wouldn't that be a better use of the money? 

 

 

I just want to know how much any proposed additional safety is going to cost and what it's going to look like. 

---

We'll just get a colored terror threat chart and you'll forget about silly things like cost soon enough. Be afraid. Obey.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Of course there's a difference, but my point is, how much are we willing to pay for this added safety? We make cost-benefit comparisons on a whole bunch of stuff every day that could possibly add to our safety, and we make decisions on how much we are willing to pay, in money, in convenience, and in Constitutional rights. There are 300 million people in the United States, and maybe 10 every year (since 2001) are killed in domestic terrorist attacks. That is a 1 in 30 million chance that you or your loved ones will be killed by a terrorist. Are you willing to pay $500? $1,000? to reduce those odds? I'm not.


More Americans are killed by lightning every year than by terrorists. You are 35,000 times more likely to die of heart disease than by a terrorist attack. You are 33,000 times more likely to die of cancer. Would you take the aforementioned $500 or $1,000 per taxpayer and use it to cure cancer? Wouldn't that be a better use of the money?



I just want to know how much any proposed additional safety is going to cost and what it's going to look like.

Im willing to cut every and all federal social program to fund national security, fair?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Im willing to cut every and all federal social program to fund national security, fair?

 

So you would cut 361 billion dollars from federal social programs and spend it to save a dozen people a year from terrorists?

 

Don't you think that money would be better spent curing cancer or something?   Or applying it to the deficit?  

 

All I'm saying is, any spending has to involve choosing one thing over another.  Money doesn't grow on trees.   There is a limit.   Therefore, every spending decision we make has to come with some kind of cost-benefit analysis.   If we want to extreme vet every single person who comes into this country, in an attempt to exclude people with certain political-religious beliefs, I want to know how much that is going to cost and how many people will be saved before I agree to it.  We have to set priorities.   Islamic extremists might kill an average of a few dozen Americans a year.   Cancer kills hundreds of thousands.   Heart disease kills hundreds of thousands.   How do we set our priorities?  

 

When fear takes over, reason goes out the window. 

---

So you would cut 361 billion dollars from federal social programs and spend it to save a dozen people a year from terrorists?

 

Don't you think that money would be better spent curing cancer or something?   Or applying it to the deficit?  

 

All I'm saying is, any spending has to involve choosing one thing over another.  Money doesn't grow on trees.   There is a limit.   Therefore, every spending decision we make has to come with some kind of cost-benefit analysis.   If we want to extreme vet every single person who comes into this country, in an attempt to exclude people with certain political-religious beliefs, I want to know how much that is going to cost and how many people will be saved before I agree to it.  We have to set priorities.   Islamic extremists might kill an average of a few dozen Americans a year.   Cancer kills hundreds of thousands.   Heart disease kills hundreds of thousands.   How do we set our priorities?  

 

When fear takes over, reason goes out the window. 

 

It seems to me that the cost should come out of the defense budget. Vetting people entering the US would provide a lot more towards national defense than continuing the F35 program.



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...et-program

 

And since every tourist (including returning citizens) is heavily searched coming through customs, adding a few questions to the process shouldn't add much in the way of expense or time. Of course this is the government we're talking about, so it will waste both money and time.


 

Sure people can lie, but most won't and there are ways of identifying a liar. The Israelis have been very successful in this, with no terror attacks at Israeli airports.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So you would cut 361 billion dollars from federal social programs and spend it to save a dozen people a year from terrorists?


Don't you think that money would be better spent curing cancer or something? Or applying it to the deficit?


All I'm saying is, any spending has to involve choosing one thing over another. Money doesn't grow on trees. There is a limit. Therefore, every spending decision we make has to come with some kind of cost-benefit analysis. If we want to extreme vet every single person who comes into this country, in an attempt to exclude people with certain political-religious beliefs, I want to know how much that is going to cost and how many people will be saved before I agree to it. We have to set priorities. Islamic extremists might kill an average of a few dozen Americans a year. Cancer kills hundreds of thousands. Heart disease kills hundreds of thousands. How do we set our priorities?


When fear takes over, reason goes out the window.

Curing cancer is not the federal government's job. This is really not complicated.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I didn't want to start a new thread for this so I'll leave it here. 

 

While it's understandable folks who supported the losing candidate can be disappointed, mature reasonable adults accept it and move on. Democrats take it to a whole new level evidenced by the wailing and gnashing of teeth, broken promises to leave the country, and outright support for obstruction of the democratic process. Even worse, they wear their puling sniveling attitudes like badges of honor. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dona...5f8587d787

 

 


"WASHINGTON ― As soon as she found out Donald Trump had won the presidential election, Diane* began applying for a new job. As a federal employee, she just couldn’t imagine sticking around and working for a man she worried would mistreat government workers and pursue dangerous, unethical policies.



But she’s not quite done with the president-elect yet. Diane is also a member of the National Guard and has been assigned to work at inauguration. 



“Oh for heaven’s sake,” she sighed..."

---

I think this is a special case to be honest. I don't recall anything remotely similar to this happening when any other candidate of either party won. We have literally never had a more offensive and presumably dangerous candidate take office. You can't act like the laundry list of misogynistic things he has said over the years don't have an impact just because the conservative element overlooked them in order to have a Republican president.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!