Obama Storms The World Stage And Rips Republicans For Being Afraid Of The Media and Orphans

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Krazysh0t

1. I'm at work on my phone so It's a little difficult for me to post the links because on my iPhone it kicks me out when I try to post .

Ok fine since you admit that you have problems posting links in your current posting spot, I'LL look into it.

2. If you had any interest of objectivity at all, a simple 3 min Google search could provide that information , as well as any number of videos on the refugee crisis posted w in the last 6 months

Of course I care about objectivity. I just don't like people telling me to source their claims. It's rude. If you can't post because you are at work and your phone sucks (btw tab browsing does exist on smart phones) then just ask me or say something first.

You're simply being obtuse, the fact that there is no link in my post does not negate facts and surely doesn't confirm your assertions

But there again u know that

Time to find out.

Here is a link DIRECTLY from the UN:
Facts and Figures about Refugees

Last year, 51% of refugees were under 18 years old. This is the highest figure for child refugees in more than a decade.

So over HALF were children.

Here's another UN source:
Syria Regional Refugee Response

Male : 49.7%
Age 0 - 4 : 8.8%
Age 5 - 11 : 10.8%
Age 12 - 17 : 6.6%
Age 18 - 59 : 22.1%
Age 60+ : 1.3%

Looks like the UN is saying that over half of the refugees are children. Also only 22.1% of the refugees are military age males. So now it's time to see who is about to be objective or not. Again this information is DIRECTLY from two UN websites. 77.9% of Syrian refugees are children, women, and the elderly.

PS: Thanks for helping me to strengthen my argument against the fear rhetoric from people such as yourself.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Apologies up front because I only wanted to post this story because I adore this headline. And the story? Well it has everything...ISIL, Putin, and calling people out on their weak sauce too.

I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric coming out of here in the course of this debate. ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there’s war between Islam and the West, and when you start seeing individuals in positions of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land that feeds the ISIL narrative. It’s counter productive. And it needs to stop. And I would add these are the same folks who suggested they’re so tough that just talk to Putin or staring down ISIL (will work) .. but they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion.

First they were worried the press was too tough on them in the debates; now they’re worried about 3-year old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to me.

They’ve been playing on fear to score political points or to advance their campaigns and it’s irresponsible. It needs to stop because the world is watching. I was proud after the attacks in Boston took place and we did not resort to fear and panic. Boston Strong. People went to the ball game that same week and sang the national anthem. And went back to the stores and went back to the streets. That’s how you defeat ISIL, not by trying to divide the country or suggest our tradition of compassion should start now. [Source]

I particularly love the last two sentences. Love him or hate him, he's not wrong.

You don't let them win by letting them turn you into opportunistic sniveling little cowards and allowing them to divide you.

When the war comes to you, because, you know, it's such a freaking SHOCK to people when it does, you deal with it and go on. Otherwise they win. Over and over again.

By attempting to manipulate us, the war and media machines, the snivelers he refers to, they make us all look like cowards.

It's time we turned the tide an call them on it. Full stop.

It’s Obama trying to use the cheap psychology to appease and distract from his failures.

We all know the right wing is going to respond this way…its nothing new.

But in this case it is the case of the boy that cried wolf too often and now the wolf is hear and Obama is so blind or blinded he can’t see the wolf even though its breathing down his backside

a reply to: ~Lucidity

And in 50+ years, history will look back on that speech by Obama, and people will recognize it as being historic and correct.

Americans are extremely short-sighted and have the attention span of a gnat (blame it on the internet, reality tv, video games). People used to learn from the past, and used to be able to ponder how their actions would be received and looked upon decades later.

Today, however, people only act in the moment -- doing whatever "feels right to them now", not caring about anyone else or any long term implications their actions may have.

Everyone calls Obama "worst president ever", but in 50 to 100 years -- mark my words, history will look much more kindly I think on this man than we all think.

Call it a gut feeling based on studying history most of my life.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't believe it for one second. The number of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan prove that this president (and the last one) are not concerned with the safety of innocent civilians when it comes to the War on Terror.

A fair point. It's still a humanitarian effort. More than just Obama - or the USA - are behind this. Obama is not king of the world, and however you might feel about some of the choices he's made in the past few years - Iraq was not his baby. But he did inherit the aftermath

There are other motives. Obama's partisan, reckless words in the OP underscore that fact.

Reckless? Partisan?

Give em hell Harry! You give them hell!

Of course, Truman is the guy that dropped the bomb. How big a mess is life?

Doing the right thing seems like a no brainer - right?

So - screw the refugees?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
He's made me feel especially proud of him the past few days - love what he said in the OP

Incredible. He tells the world that republicans in America are prejudiced, fearful, and have no compassion for Syrian orphans and then expects them to have confidence he has everyone's best interest in mind with his refugee policies.

If that's the kind of asinine rhetoric that makes you proud, I have a hard time believing you've ever found disappointment in Obama.

As a reminder....

Please read the following...
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Community Announcement re: Decorum

Most importantly .....You are responsible for your own posts.
Those who engage int trolling, bickering and off topic posting will have their posts removed, with the additional chance of Posting Bans.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't believe it for one second. The number of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan prove that this president (and the last one) are not concerned with the safety of innocent civilians when it comes to the War on Terror.

A fair point. It's still a humanitarian effort. More than just Obama - or the USA - are behind this. Obama is not king of the world, and however you might feel some of the choices he's made in the past few years - Iraq was not his baby. But he did inherit the aftermath

There are other motives. Obama's partisan, reckless words in the OP underscore that fact.

Reckless? Partisan?

Give em hell Harry! You give them hell!

Of course, Truman is the guy that dropped the bomb. How big a mess is life?

Doing the right thing seems like a no brainer - right?

So - screw the refugees?

Yes. Reckless. Twisting people's legitimate fears into a message of hate towards Syrians is a reckless way to introduce them to a life in the U.S.

Obama grossly overstated his commitment to ending the wars. I prefer to call him a big, fat liar who exploited the wars for a vote and a buck. It's clear to me that he is no humanitarian, therefore, I am confident he has other motives. That should be considered as much, if not more than a *cough* humanitarian motive.

But, screw any hope of discussing hidden motives. It's too much fun to call republicans bigots.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's too much fun to call republicans bigots.

Is that what this is about? Your feelings got hurt?

It's the republicans that want to deny aid to people in need. Own your opinions - own your position

There's no need to call them bigots:

I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric coming out of here in the course of this debate. ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there’s war between Islam and the West, and when you start seeing individuals in positions of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land that feeds the ISIL narrative. It’s counter productive. And it needs to stop.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ~Lucidity

And in 50+ years, history will look back on that speech by Obama, and people will recognize it as being historic and correct.

Americans are extremely short-sighted and have the attention span of a gnat (blame it on the internet, reality tv, video games). People used to learn from the past, and used to be able to ponder how their actions would be received and looked upon decades later.

Today, however, people only act in the moment -- doing whatever "feels right to them now", not caring about anyone else or any long term implications their actions may have.

Everyone calls Obama "worst president ever", but in 50 to 100 years -- mark my words, history will look much more kindly I think on this man than we all think.

Call it a gut feeling based on studying history most of my life.

The call of history on Obama is not over yet and he can only go down unless he gets lucky in the ME

The problem with Obama is by refusing a vigorous onslaught to ISIS
he isn't protecting the eventual victims of ISIS, he has doomed them with no hope

He has condemned them to death


We’ll see how history judged that

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If that's the kind of asinine rhetoric that makes you proud, I have a hard time believing you've ever found disappointment in Obama.

You're entitled to your opinion of course

I've spent every day of the past 7 plus years watching and listening to the republicans in this country

Your opinions no longer interest me

Can't say I'm surprised. As an independent who has never voted republican, I've found democrats have no use for my opinions when we differ.

They can't be used to marginalized republicans.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: queenofswords

Did you know that I don't care about any of that? I'm not going to let people tell me to be afraid of Muslims. Especially refugees. Hey, btw, did you know that all the terrorists in Paris have all been linked to being locals and NOT refugees?

Yes we're perfectly well aware that the liberal left operate on "feelings" instead of logic and what's infront of your face

Regardless of the issues other countries are having w the influx of refugees, for some unfathomable reason, the left thinks the U.S. is immune from the same issues

This is madness, but that's ok , once again things will go south, just like every other policy this administration has undertaken where the "right" has screamed " this isn't what you think, this will not turn out well". The left will barrel headlong into another disaster disregarding our plea to stop, and think....

And once again we will have to try and dig out of the aftermath


Cloward and piven, overwhelm the system. Just as planned

Liberals operating on feelings?

From what I've seen, the so-called liberals are the only ones using logic and facts to back up their position. The "liberals" are the only ones looking at historical facts, statistics, and coming to the conclusion that the actual Syrian refuge risk is blown out of proportion.

Conservatives seem to the the ones operating solely on emotions, with FEAR being the big one. Other emotions included are hate, confusion, worry, panic, anger -- delivered by scare-mongering right-wing rhetoric mouthpieces.

Scientists have proven that conservative people have different brains -- yes, conservatives and liberals actually differ in their brain structures. Conservatives have a larger amygdala. What is the amgdala?

The amygdala is involved in the processing of emotions such as fear, anger and pleasure.

biology.about.com

And how do scientists know that conservatives have larger amygdalas, and what does this actually do to people?

Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala (link is external) than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.

link

There have been more studies involving showing people various images and seeing which people respond and which people don't:

One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of "a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it," as one of their papers put it).

In other words,the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.

It very well could be an evolutionary hold-over as well according to researchers:

"One possibility," they write, "is that a strong negativity bias was extremely useful in the Pleistocene,"[ when it would have been super-helpful in preventing you from getting killed. (The Pleistocene epoch lasted from roughly 2.5 million years ago until 12,000 years ago.)

link

So we end up with this:



And when we take in all the research, what it boils down to is this:

Let’s take liberals and conservatives, since we are theorizing that they are two distinct thinking styles: liberals would be more flexible and reliant on data, proof, and analytic reasoning, and conservatives are more inflexible (prefer stability), emotion-driven, and connect themselves intimately with their ideas, making those beliefs a crucial part of their identity (we see this in more high-empathy-expressing individuals). This fits in with the whole “family values” platform of the conservative party, and also why we see more religious folks that identify as conservatives, and more skeptics, agnostics, and atheists that are liberal.

So—for liberals to make a case for an idea or cause, they come armed with data, research studies, and experts. They are convinced of an idea if all the data checks out–basically they assign meaning and value to ideas that fit within the scientific method, because that’s their primary thinking style. Emotion doesn’t play as big of a role in validation. Not to say that liberals are unfeeling, but just more likely to set emotion aside when judging an idea initially, and factor it in later. Checks out scientifically = valuable. Liberals can get just as emotionally attached to an idea, but it’s usually not the primary trigger for acceptance of an idea.

onservatives would be less likely to assign value primarily using the scientific method. Remember, their thinking style leads primarily with emotion. In order for them to find an idea valuable, it has to be meaningful for them personally. It needs to trigger empathy. Meaning, they need some kind of emotional attachment to it, such as family, or a group of individuals they are close to in some way.

link

When you combine all of this research, it's quite easy to see why liberals and conservatives can't seem to get through to one another. Conservatives are in fear for their lives, and liberals don't see any factual evidence to support the fear. Liberals present studies and numbers, but those facts are "hollow" and don't give a good "gut feeling" for the conservatives. Studies, statistics, and history doesn't remove fear and give a sense of security to a conservative. This is why so often we have the epic failure to communicate -- we don't understand each other's style.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why? Can't we just vet the refugees to make sure they aren't terrorists? Oh wait we do. Here is a report from Rhode Island:
Refugee screening process explained

Actually, we can't even vet welfare applicants properly. But you've already made your own conclusions on how capable our government is as vetting people, so my arguments against its capabilities won't change anything. Just remember that even the FBI director said that we will not be able to properly vet everyone coming through.

The problem with the way that this Syrian refugee process is happening is that there has already been an "at least" number goal that the administration wants to meet for allowing refugees through. When there is an arbitrary number thrown around, things slip through the already-too-big cracks even more in order to reach an unnecessary goal.

But again, if you want to put your faith in the U.S. Government to administer the vetting process thoroughly and completely, have at it.

The general welfare of American citizens? You DO know that Muslim terrorism accounts for 2% of American terror attacks right?

During which time frame? And by which parameters? I mean, do we disregard "workplace violence" and attempts that are thwarted?

You cannot have safety and freedom. I thought that was a well-known thing here on ATS?

I'm generally one of the first to use the cliché that I'd rather deal with the inconveniences of too much liberty than the inconveniences of too little, but our conversation has nothing to do with liberty or freedom, it has to do with our federal government acting intelligently and on behalf of the American People instead of in an effort to look good on the national stage.

We've seen what people of ALL ideologies can do if give the chance. Violent extremism isn't a Muslim only thing. Where there is a will to incite violence there is a way. Muslim is just the flavor of the month. You didn't even care about these refugees last month. Instead we were talking about Mexican immigrants.

Actually, I did care about them last month, as I've been following this for a while. Just because I didn't discuss it with you or on ATS doesn't mean that I didn't care. There is life that happens for me outside of the ATS microsphere...

My friends Obama is playing a cynical game here…he cares not for any Syrian Refugees. If he did he wouldn’t have signed on to the Syrian black operation to destabilize that country in the first place.

He’s using the GOP usual reactions as a smokescreen with the hope it will change the subject from his impotence to a world wide menace of unprecedented evil that he is neglecting.


If you fall for Obama’s words again then one hasn’t learned what a con man's victims finally learn.
And that is to only trust actions not words

As for the immigrant issue, sure it’s reasonable to have fears that they might be infiltrated by ISIS plants

And we all know the conservatives are going to be on the cautious side which is a reasonable fear in this case

So why make this issue a big thing when this time it is a reasonable possibility that the usual hysterical rumblings of the GOP are quite real.


Obama is just trying to get some self worth out of all of this after being skewered by the world for his inaction so he is going to debase the GOP for his own self esteem and all of a sudden asking them to have faith

What does he do when they ask him to have faith in terms of guns?

As usual both sides are right and wrong

And both sides are wrong to not come to a compromise

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh dear God, you thought I was a republican

You were defending them. How can that possibly surprise you?

Tell me, as an independent (which - I was an independent too - until I saw the writing on the wall) do you think somehow you are above the fray? Superior?

I ask you again - do we screw the refugees?

Show me some independent thinking

I was defending the idea of having a thoughtful, productive national discussion on how to deal with the refugee crisis. One free of partisan fingerpointing and exploitation to score political points. One that brings many ideas and POVs to the table, not just one.

And that answers your other questions. We haven't begun a fair, productive discussion on the refugees and that is what is going to screw everyone.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If that's the kind of asinine rhetoric that makes you proud, I have a hard time believing you've ever found disappointment in Obama.

You can believe what you want to believe about me

Yes - this is the sort of thing that makes me proud

There are any number of ways to spin this - you choose to believe that Obama is a cynic?

Perhaps it's the people speaking out against this that are the most cynical. They want to use his words, directed very specifically at people in this country that are in fact already leaders - some competing for the highest office in the land - and turn them around to make it look like he doesn't care about his country or refugees

Who is it again that has gone on the record as actually saying they don't care about the refugees?