Upload
Login or register

scootabot

Last status update:
-
Gender: female
Age: 93
Date Signed Up:5/29/2013
Last Login:12/02/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#843
Highest Content Rank:#2784
Highest Comment Rank:#389
Content Thumbs: 1662 total,  2344 ,  682
Comment Thumbs: 26398 total,  37160 ,  10762
Content Level Progress: 5% (5/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 58.8% (588/1000)
Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 322 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:9
Content Views:155961
Times Content Favorited:76 times
Total Comments Made:9512
FJ Points:21299

Rewards

Text Posts

  • Views: 42796
    Thumbs Up 956 Thumbs Down 123 Total: +833
    Comments: 146
    Favorites: 35
    Uploaded: 06/15/13
    And I didn't get to save. And I didn't get to save.
  • Views: 22175
    Thumbs Up 380 Thumbs Down 168 Total: +212
    Comments: 34
    Favorites: 14
    Uploaded: 05/30/13
    Hard Work Hard Work
  • Views: 9392
    Thumbs Up 174 Thumbs Down 15 Total: +159
    Comments: 19
    Favorites: 5
    Uploaded: 10/31/15
    Happy Halloween from Scoots Happy Halloween from Scoots
  • Views: 6547
    Thumbs Up 102 Thumbs Down 52 Total: +50
    Comments: 29
    Favorites: 3
    Uploaded: 10/31/14
    Happy Halloween! Happy Halloween!
  • Views: 4601
    Thumbs Up 56 Thumbs Down 16 Total: +40
    Comments: 38
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 02/27/16
    Fallout 4 Reference! Fallout 4 Reference!
  • Views: 3153
    Thumbs Up 40 Thumbs Down 9 Total: +31
    Comments: 6
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 09/03/13
    Testing Testing

latest user's comments

#53 - You serious? I saw on the news that Obama was getting in 1…  [+] (10 replies) 12/02/2016 on #closetheborder 0
User avatar
#57 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
100,000 refugees total. Not 100,000 Syrian refugees.
#58 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
fuck them. im not paying for that shit. why dont you get culturally enrched over in osu
User avatar
#59 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
why are you getting pissy at me for stating a fact
#60 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
pissy? because im done dealing with progressive bullshit where its our responsibility to fix save the world when we cant even fix our own problems. why the fuck arent we helping the 50k+ homeless vets in this country?
User avatar
#61 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't know why we're not helping them. Why are those two things related?
#62 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
america first bitch
User avatar
#63 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
Okay, and refugees second? Or refugees never?
#64 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
how about refugees when we arent 20 trillion in debt? why dont we help them in THEIR country? or maybe never because frankly islam is not compatible with western civilization
User avatar
#66 - bgr (12/02/2016) [-]
because we are partly responsible for causing them to become refugees.

Going around spending trillions in military invasions and proxy wars to destabilize governments, create power vaccums and warlord groups. Then when the inevitable chaois ensures step back and say "it wasnt us"

This is some retarded ideology here.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath
#98 - Nah. Not really. Not if all the heroes can do it, then I d…  [+] (1 reply) 12/02/2016 on YOU IN VIETNAM BITCHES! 0
User avatar
#130 - huntergriff (12/02/2016) [-]
nigga, i can do it as a regular trooper.
#48 - The United States doesn't have a refugee problem YET. Because …  [+] (13 replies) 12/02/2016 on #closetheborder 0
User avatar
#52 - bgr (12/02/2016) [-]
We've only got about 10000 Syrian refugees in America not hundreds of thousands.

Our screening process is also much longer and somewhat frustrating than EU countries.
User avatar
#54 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
Well I'm wrong on that, then.
User avatar
#53 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
You serious?
I saw on the news that Obama was getting in 100,000 refugees at some point... Maybe that was a hat in the air sort of thing? I'm not sure.
User avatar
#57 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
100,000 refugees total. Not 100,000 Syrian refugees.
#58 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
fuck them. im not paying for that shit. why dont you get culturally enrched over in osu
User avatar
#59 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
why are you getting pissy at me for stating a fact
#60 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
pissy? because im done dealing with progressive bullshit where its our responsibility to fix save the world when we cant even fix our own problems. why the fuck arent we helping the 50k+ homeless vets in this country?
User avatar
#61 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't know why we're not helping them. Why are those two things related?
#62 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
america first bitch
User avatar
#63 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
Okay, and refugees second? Or refugees never?
#64 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
how about refugees when we arent 20 trillion in debt? why dont we help them in THEIR country? or maybe never because frankly islam is not compatible with western civilization
User avatar
#66 - bgr (12/02/2016) [-]
because we are partly responsible for causing them to become refugees.

Going around spending trillions in military invasions and proxy wars to destabilize governments, create power vaccums and warlord groups. Then when the inevitable chaois ensures step back and say "it wasnt us"

This is some retarded ideology here.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath
#47 - I'm all for letting SOME in, but not all that want to. I'm…  [+] (1 reply) 12/02/2016 on #closetheborder 0
User avatar
#71 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I'll reply to both your comments here.

Virtue signal or not, admitting refugees still genuinely helps the refugees we admit, however small that number may be. These people are, in many cases, fleeing imminent mortal danger or severe oppression, so even without the provision of welfare they would be better off in the United States.

The question of whether this is good or safe for America is a separate question. In 2016, the Obama administration is set to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees (and 85,000 refugees in total). Hillary Clinton's proposal would have increased that number to 65,000 Syrian refugees, which is a 550% increase, but would hardly make a dent in our culture or demographic makeup, especially since the refugees are dispersed all around the country in relatively small numbers. Almost 80% of the Syrian refugees admitted are women and children www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-08/it-s-now-clear-most-syrian-refugees-coming-united-states-are-women-and-children . The process for admitting these people is among the most stringent in the world: it takes 1-2 years for a Syrian refugee to complete the process of being admitted into the US, and including background checks and in-person interviews that all must take place before they even cross the Atlantic. Donald Trump calls for "extreme vetting", but that's pretty much what we already have - at least, with refugees.
We've admitted around 750,000 refugees into the US since 9/11, and of those only 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes not including the Ohio attacker, who was killed and thus couldn't be charged. That is an incredible track record.

It is true that most refugees end up on welfare (which isn't to say they don't work). That's pretty hard to avoid. I suppose it's a fair argument to say you don't want to pay US tax dollars for them.
However the argument that "we can't even take care of our own" feels a bit empty to me. Why can't we take care of our own? What's stopping us from solving that problem, and how is it related to refugees?
For that matter, what does it even mean to "take care of" our own? Is this to say that the government must provide everyone with a decent standard of living (via welfare policies) before we can start taking refugees? Does this mean we have to completely end homelessness and hunger? Is there any measurable goal here that can be accomplished before we say "okay, now we can start helping foreigners"?
#93 - That's the thing. I doubt this chick could win in a tug of war…  [+] (3 replies) 12/02/2016 on YOU IN VIETNAM BITCHES! +1
User avatar
#96 - aimoperative (12/02/2016) [-]
Does this matter if it's only a gameplay mechanic?
User avatar
#98 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
Nah. Not really.
Not if all the heroes can do it, then I don't really have a problem with it. Just fix your damn melee system. Lol.

It's kind of retarded, even for a man, if you punch someone and they go flying ten feet in the air. Do what they did with Battlefield. Have a nice little animation play.
User avatar
#130 - huntergriff (12/02/2016) [-]
nigga, i can do it as a regular trooper.
#43 - Also, just because we've only had a few, it doesn't mean we sh…  [+] (3 replies) 12/02/2016 on #closetheborder 0
User avatar
#46 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't think many people are advocating that. There is not a dichotomous choice between banning all refugees, and accepting all refugees. We can limit the number we accept and implement stringent screening processes to ensure that those who come in don't pose a threat - as we already do.
User avatar
#47 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
I'm all for letting SOME in, but not all that want to.
I'm tired of the Government bringing in more people from overseas while tossing the natives of their country to the wolves.

It's just a big virtue signal. Look at all the refugees we're taking in! We're good people! Look at all the benefits we're giving them! We're a rich and powerful nation who can afford to give away all of our welfare!

When all along there are natives who live in the country who can't afford a meal. They're going to use tax payer money to bring those people over and we're supposed to pay for their housing and, whatever.

I'm just saying, a country's duties should be to it's people first, not others. If other countries fail at keeping their people happy, then let those people fight for a better country, where everyone can be happy, don't spread the disease around.
User avatar
#71 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I'll reply to both your comments here.

Virtue signal or not, admitting refugees still genuinely helps the refugees we admit, however small that number may be. These people are, in many cases, fleeing imminent mortal danger or severe oppression, so even without the provision of welfare they would be better off in the United States.

The question of whether this is good or safe for America is a separate question. In 2016, the Obama administration is set to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees (and 85,000 refugees in total). Hillary Clinton's proposal would have increased that number to 65,000 Syrian refugees, which is a 550% increase, but would hardly make a dent in our culture or demographic makeup, especially since the refugees are dispersed all around the country in relatively small numbers. Almost 80% of the Syrian refugees admitted are women and children www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-08/it-s-now-clear-most-syrian-refugees-coming-united-states-are-women-and-children . The process for admitting these people is among the most stringent in the world: it takes 1-2 years for a Syrian refugee to complete the process of being admitted into the US, and including background checks and in-person interviews that all must take place before they even cross the Atlantic. Donald Trump calls for "extreme vetting", but that's pretty much what we already have - at least, with refugees.
We've admitted around 750,000 refugees into the US since 9/11, and of those only 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes not including the Ohio attacker, who was killed and thus couldn't be charged. That is an incredible track record.

It is true that most refugees end up on welfare (which isn't to say they don't work). That's pretty hard to avoid. I suppose it's a fair argument to say you don't want to pay US tax dollars for them.
However the argument that "we can't even take care of our own" feels a bit empty to me. Why can't we take care of our own? What's stopping us from solving that problem, and how is it related to refugees?
For that matter, what does it even mean to "take care of" our own? Is this to say that the government must provide everyone with a decent standard of living (via welfare policies) before we can start taking refugees? Does this mean we have to completely end homelessness and hunger? Is there any measurable goal here that can be accomplished before we say "okay, now we can start helping foreigners"?
#40 - There is a reason for that, as I said. The Muslims that are ac…  [+] (15 replies) 12/02/2016 on #closetheborder 0
User avatar
#45 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't disagree with you that Europe has a huge problem with its refugees and Muslim immigrants not assimilating or following the laws, but if we're talking about the merits of banning all refugees from the United States specifically, we have to look at the situation in the US. And I really do not think the US has a refugee problem. We have one of the most stringent processes for accepting refugees in the world, and have had virtually no incidents with them. If this trend continues, why ban them from coming? There's no problem that that solves.
User avatar
#48 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
The United States doesn't have a refugee problem YET. Because the populace is so against it and so are politicians who represent those people. Obama wants to bring in a lot more 'refugees', and Hillary said she wanted to take in many times more he did. I forgot the exact number, but it was like 500% increase or something like that. We've already got a several hundred thousand in our nation, but I doubt ALL of them hate America and do not want to assimilate.

User avatar
#52 - bgr (12/02/2016) [-]
We've only got about 10000 Syrian refugees in America not hundreds of thousands.

Our screening process is also much longer and somewhat frustrating than EU countries.
User avatar
#54 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
Well I'm wrong on that, then.
User avatar
#53 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
You serious?
I saw on the news that Obama was getting in 100,000 refugees at some point... Maybe that was a hat in the air sort of thing? I'm not sure.
User avatar
#57 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
100,000 refugees total. Not 100,000 Syrian refugees.
#58 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
fuck them. im not paying for that shit. why dont you get culturally enrched over in osu
User avatar
#59 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
why are you getting pissy at me for stating a fact
#60 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
pissy? because im done dealing with progressive bullshit where its our responsibility to fix save the world when we cant even fix our own problems. why the fuck arent we helping the 50k+ homeless vets in this country?
User avatar
#61 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't know why we're not helping them. Why are those two things related?
#62 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
america first bitch
User avatar
#63 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
Okay, and refugees second? Or refugees never?
#64 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
how about refugees when we arent 20 trillion in debt? why dont we help them in THEIR country? or maybe never because frankly islam is not compatible with western civilization
User avatar
#66 - bgr (12/02/2016) [-]
because we are partly responsible for causing them to become refugees.

Going around spending trillions in military invasions and proxy wars to destabilize governments, create power vaccums and warlord groups. Then when the inevitable chaois ensures step back and say "it wasnt us"

This is some retarded ideology here.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath
#37 - Are you asking where crime spiked 300% in American places wher…  [+] (21 replies) 12/02/2016 on #closetheborder +1
User avatar
#38 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I am asking about America specifically. Because as far as I'm aware, the US has had far, far less problems with our refugees than Europe does: we are much more picky in who we accept, and our refugees and Muslim immigrants tend to assimilate much better and hold more liberal beliefs.

In fact, the recent Ohio State attack was the first case I've heard of of a refugee committing a terror attack in the US.
User avatar
#43 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
Also, just because we've only had a few, it doesn't mean we should open the flood gates, does it?

Just because it hasn't happened in large amounts here, yet, doesn't mean it never will.

If we sit back and just let them come in with open arms, we will soon find knives in our backs. Or, in some people's cases, trucks running over people, theaters being shot up, cartoonists being killed, enforcing sharia law, soldiers/cops beheaded in the streets... You know, things of that nature.
User avatar
#46 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't think many people are advocating that. There is not a dichotomous choice between banning all refugees, and accepting all refugees. We can limit the number we accept and implement stringent screening processes to ensure that those who come in don't pose a threat - as we already do.
User avatar
#47 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
I'm all for letting SOME in, but not all that want to.
I'm tired of the Government bringing in more people from overseas while tossing the natives of their country to the wolves.

It's just a big virtue signal. Look at all the refugees we're taking in! We're good people! Look at all the benefits we're giving them! We're a rich and powerful nation who can afford to give away all of our welfare!

When all along there are natives who live in the country who can't afford a meal. They're going to use tax payer money to bring those people over and we're supposed to pay for their housing and, whatever.

I'm just saying, a country's duties should be to it's people first, not others. If other countries fail at keeping their people happy, then let those people fight for a better country, where everyone can be happy, don't spread the disease around.
User avatar
#71 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I'll reply to both your comments here.

Virtue signal or not, admitting refugees still genuinely helps the refugees we admit, however small that number may be. These people are, in many cases, fleeing imminent mortal danger or severe oppression, so even without the provision of welfare they would be better off in the United States.

The question of whether this is good or safe for America is a separate question. In 2016, the Obama administration is set to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees (and 85,000 refugees in total). Hillary Clinton's proposal would have increased that number to 65,000 Syrian refugees, which is a 550% increase, but would hardly make a dent in our culture or demographic makeup, especially since the refugees are dispersed all around the country in relatively small numbers. Almost 80% of the Syrian refugees admitted are women and children www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-08/it-s-now-clear-most-syrian-refugees-coming-united-states-are-women-and-children . The process for admitting these people is among the most stringent in the world: it takes 1-2 years for a Syrian refugee to complete the process of being admitted into the US, and including background checks and in-person interviews that all must take place before they even cross the Atlantic. Donald Trump calls for "extreme vetting", but that's pretty much what we already have - at least, with refugees.
We've admitted around 750,000 refugees into the US since 9/11, and of those only 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes not including the Ohio attacker, who was killed and thus couldn't be charged. That is an incredible track record.

It is true that most refugees end up on welfare (which isn't to say they don't work). That's pretty hard to avoid. I suppose it's a fair argument to say you don't want to pay US tax dollars for them.
However the argument that "we can't even take care of our own" feels a bit empty to me. Why can't we take care of our own? What's stopping us from solving that problem, and how is it related to refugees?
For that matter, what does it even mean to "take care of" our own? Is this to say that the government must provide everyone with a decent standard of living (via welfare policies) before we can start taking refugees? Does this mean we have to completely end homelessness and hunger? Is there any measurable goal here that can be accomplished before we say "okay, now we can start helping foreigners"?
User avatar
#40 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
There is a reason for that, as I said. The Muslims that are accepted into our country aren't refugees, per se. They are immigrants. They have the money and education required to move to another country and possibly integrate with society. Those are the types of muslims I don't mind having living in my country. They're alright. Heck, I knew one kid who was obsessed with batman and baseball, he was a muslim and I didn't really care. I was actually interested about his religion and how he sees the world.

However, when you've got Muhammad over there raping women and getting let off the hook because he 'didn't speak the language' or "he didn't know it was wrong" that's when I draw the line. I say no. I'll stand against those types from entering my country. I'm sure a lot of people will.

Ironically, I'm a left leaning centrist. I really just don't want to let the wolves rest among the sheep. I want to protect people against this dangerous ideology and the people who would enforce its teachings to hurt others.
User avatar
#45 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't disagree with you that Europe has a huge problem with its refugees and Muslim immigrants not assimilating or following the laws, but if we're talking about the merits of banning all refugees from the United States specifically, we have to look at the situation in the US. And I really do not think the US has a refugee problem. We have one of the most stringent processes for accepting refugees in the world, and have had virtually no incidents with them. If this trend continues, why ban them from coming? There's no problem that that solves.
User avatar
#48 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
The United States doesn't have a refugee problem YET. Because the populace is so against it and so are politicians who represent those people. Obama wants to bring in a lot more 'refugees', and Hillary said she wanted to take in many times more he did. I forgot the exact number, but it was like 500% increase or something like that. We've already got a several hundred thousand in our nation, but I doubt ALL of them hate America and do not want to assimilate.

User avatar
#52 - bgr (12/02/2016) [-]
We've only got about 10000 Syrian refugees in America not hundreds of thousands.

Our screening process is also much longer and somewhat frustrating than EU countries.
User avatar
#54 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
Well I'm wrong on that, then.
User avatar
#53 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
You serious?
I saw on the news that Obama was getting in 100,000 refugees at some point... Maybe that was a hat in the air sort of thing? I'm not sure.
User avatar
#57 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
100,000 refugees total. Not 100,000 Syrian refugees.
#58 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
fuck them. im not paying for that shit. why dont you get culturally enrched over in osu
User avatar
#59 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
why are you getting pissy at me for stating a fact
#60 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
pissy? because im done dealing with progressive bullshit where its our responsibility to fix save the world when we cant even fix our own problems. why the fuck arent we helping the 50k+ homeless vets in this country?
User avatar
#61 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't know why we're not helping them. Why are those two things related?
#62 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
america first bitch
User avatar
#63 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
Okay, and refugees second? Or refugees never?
#64 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
how about refugees when we arent 20 trillion in debt? why dont we help them in THEIR country? or maybe never because frankly islam is not compatible with western civilization
User avatar
#66 - bgr (12/02/2016) [-]
because we are partly responsible for causing them to become refugees.

Going around spending trillions in military invasions and proxy wars to destabilize governments, create power vaccums and warlord groups. Then when the inevitable chaois ensures step back and say "it wasnt us"

This is some retarded ideology here.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath
#34 - Considering a Somali refugee just recently attacked a bunch of…  [+] (23 replies) 12/02/2016 on #closetheborder 0
User avatar
#35 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
One example doesn't answer my question. What's the source on your claim that crime increased 300%?
User avatar
#37 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
Are you asking where crime spiked 300% in American places where a small number of refugees were accepted? Or are you talking about in general?

Because in general, Europe is fucking fucked at the moment with all the refugees and the rate of crime skyrocketing everywhere. In Germany alone.

In America, attacks like this have been occurring more frequently, though they aren't as bad as they are in Europe because the sort of immigrants we get in America are those who generally have money.

However, if we were to take in the impoverished Muslims, like Europe has, then we will have climbing crime rates. It's just applying logic, it doesn't really need to come from a news website. We all know it's happening.
www.express.co.uk/news/world/644827/refugees-committed-crimes-Germany-migrant-crisis-last-year
www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7470/germany-migrants-crime
www.allenbwest.com/ashleyedwardson/mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-why-sweden-is-now-rape-capital-of-the-west
dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/sweden-opened-its-doors-to-muslim-immigration-today-its-the-rape-capital-of-the-west-japan-didnt/

I mean, you can look this stuff up yourself.

As far as the 300% thing I mentioned, I'm having trouble remembering if it was crime in general or if it was the rates in rape. Either way, it's awful and easily disqualifies any right minded person into letting the rapefugees into our country.
User avatar
#38 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I am asking about America specifically. Because as far as I'm aware, the US has had far, far less problems with our refugees than Europe does: we are much more picky in who we accept, and our refugees and Muslim immigrants tend to assimilate much better and hold more liberal beliefs.

In fact, the recent Ohio State attack was the first case I've heard of of a refugee committing a terror attack in the US.
User avatar
#43 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
Also, just because we've only had a few, it doesn't mean we should open the flood gates, does it?

Just because it hasn't happened in large amounts here, yet, doesn't mean it never will.

If we sit back and just let them come in with open arms, we will soon find knives in our backs. Or, in some people's cases, trucks running over people, theaters being shot up, cartoonists being killed, enforcing sharia law, soldiers/cops beheaded in the streets... You know, things of that nature.
User avatar
#46 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't think many people are advocating that. There is not a dichotomous choice between banning all refugees, and accepting all refugees. We can limit the number we accept and implement stringent screening processes to ensure that those who come in don't pose a threat - as we already do.
User avatar
#47 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
I'm all for letting SOME in, but not all that want to.
I'm tired of the Government bringing in more people from overseas while tossing the natives of their country to the wolves.

It's just a big virtue signal. Look at all the refugees we're taking in! We're good people! Look at all the benefits we're giving them! We're a rich and powerful nation who can afford to give away all of our welfare!

When all along there are natives who live in the country who can't afford a meal. They're going to use tax payer money to bring those people over and we're supposed to pay for their housing and, whatever.

I'm just saying, a country's duties should be to it's people first, not others. If other countries fail at keeping their people happy, then let those people fight for a better country, where everyone can be happy, don't spread the disease around.
User avatar
#71 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I'll reply to both your comments here.

Virtue signal or not, admitting refugees still genuinely helps the refugees we admit, however small that number may be. These people are, in many cases, fleeing imminent mortal danger or severe oppression, so even without the provision of welfare they would be better off in the United States.

The question of whether this is good or safe for America is a separate question. In 2016, the Obama administration is set to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees (and 85,000 refugees in total). Hillary Clinton's proposal would have increased that number to 65,000 Syrian refugees, which is a 550% increase, but would hardly make a dent in our culture or demographic makeup, especially since the refugees are dispersed all around the country in relatively small numbers. Almost 80% of the Syrian refugees admitted are women and children www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-08/it-s-now-clear-most-syrian-refugees-coming-united-states-are-women-and-children . The process for admitting these people is among the most stringent in the world: it takes 1-2 years for a Syrian refugee to complete the process of being admitted into the US, and including background checks and in-person interviews that all must take place before they even cross the Atlantic. Donald Trump calls for "extreme vetting", but that's pretty much what we already have - at least, with refugees.
We've admitted around 750,000 refugees into the US since 9/11, and of those only 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes not including the Ohio attacker, who was killed and thus couldn't be charged. That is an incredible track record.

It is true that most refugees end up on welfare (which isn't to say they don't work). That's pretty hard to avoid. I suppose it's a fair argument to say you don't want to pay US tax dollars for them.
However the argument that "we can't even take care of our own" feels a bit empty to me. Why can't we take care of our own? What's stopping us from solving that problem, and how is it related to refugees?
For that matter, what does it even mean to "take care of" our own? Is this to say that the government must provide everyone with a decent standard of living (via welfare policies) before we can start taking refugees? Does this mean we have to completely end homelessness and hunger? Is there any measurable goal here that can be accomplished before we say "okay, now we can start helping foreigners"?
User avatar
#40 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
There is a reason for that, as I said. The Muslims that are accepted into our country aren't refugees, per se. They are immigrants. They have the money and education required to move to another country and possibly integrate with society. Those are the types of muslims I don't mind having living in my country. They're alright. Heck, I knew one kid who was obsessed with batman and baseball, he was a muslim and I didn't really care. I was actually interested about his religion and how he sees the world.

However, when you've got Muhammad over there raping women and getting let off the hook because he 'didn't speak the language' or "he didn't know it was wrong" that's when I draw the line. I say no. I'll stand against those types from entering my country. I'm sure a lot of people will.

Ironically, I'm a left leaning centrist. I really just don't want to let the wolves rest among the sheep. I want to protect people against this dangerous ideology and the people who would enforce its teachings to hurt others.
User avatar
#45 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't disagree with you that Europe has a huge problem with its refugees and Muslim immigrants not assimilating or following the laws, but if we're talking about the merits of banning all refugees from the United States specifically, we have to look at the situation in the US. And I really do not think the US has a refugee problem. We have one of the most stringent processes for accepting refugees in the world, and have had virtually no incidents with them. If this trend continues, why ban them from coming? There's no problem that that solves.
User avatar
#48 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
The United States doesn't have a refugee problem YET. Because the populace is so against it and so are politicians who represent those people. Obama wants to bring in a lot more 'refugees', and Hillary said she wanted to take in many times more he did. I forgot the exact number, but it was like 500% increase or something like that. We've already got a several hundred thousand in our nation, but I doubt ALL of them hate America and do not want to assimilate.

User avatar
#52 - bgr (12/02/2016) [-]
We've only got about 10000 Syrian refugees in America not hundreds of thousands.

Our screening process is also much longer and somewhat frustrating than EU countries.
User avatar
#54 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
Well I'm wrong on that, then.
User avatar
#53 - scootabot (12/02/2016) [-]
You serious?
I saw on the news that Obama was getting in 100,000 refugees at some point... Maybe that was a hat in the air sort of thing? I'm not sure.
User avatar
#57 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
100,000 refugees total. Not 100,000 Syrian refugees.
#58 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
fuck them. im not paying for that shit. why dont you get culturally enrched over in osu
User avatar
#59 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
why are you getting pissy at me for stating a fact
#60 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
pissy? because im done dealing with progressive bullshit where its our responsibility to fix save the world when we cant even fix our own problems. why the fuck arent we helping the 50k+ homeless vets in this country?
User avatar
#61 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
I don't know why we're not helping them. Why are those two things related?
#62 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
america first bitch
User avatar
#63 - Ruspanic (12/02/2016) [-]
Okay, and refugees second? Or refugees never?
#64 - lostabyss (12/02/2016) [-]
how about refugees when we arent 20 trillion in debt? why dont we help them in THEIR country? or maybe never because frankly islam is not compatible with western civilization
User avatar
#66 - bgr (12/02/2016) [-]
because we are partly responsible for causing them to become refugees.

Going around spending trillions in military invasions and proxy wars to destabilize governments, create power vaccums and warlord groups. Then when the inevitable chaois ensures step back and say "it wasnt us"

This is some retarded ideology here.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath

channels owned

Subscribe scoots-art