A change in the administration's position that refugees aren't a threat to anyone? The recognition is pointed at the threat to Europe's political fabric, which simply can't absorb further mass migration until (and unless) it can assimilate the mass migration it has already encouraged. The United States hasn't encouraged mass migration from the Islamic world in the same way, but it certainly has from the Third World writ broadly. We're better at assimilation, usually, but I wonder if the administration isn't going to decide that the real answer is for us instead of Europe to take on more Syrian migrants.
5 comments:
Wait, wasn't under population, too many people giving birth in Africa to limited resources, and not enough Americans foolish enough to protect weaklings, the underlying problem before?
To solve the underpopulation issue, they took populations from Africa, relieving the strain from there and the ME, to promote slave worker ethics in Europe, replacing their non growing workers. However, this caused another problem, which now threatens to destroy European civilization at a far faster rate than the lack of pop growth rates ever did.
It's like a Rube Goldberg machine, except conducted by the hands of evil and government. And of all things, it was entirely intentional. Although the consequences weren't always expected exactly.
My position in 2008 was that the Hussein Regime was amoral and intentionally destroying stuff. Other people contradicted that stance and said the real reason was because Hussein was stupid/dumb/incompetent and the government was normal, not malicious or nefarious. Just normally inefficient.
Was Fast and Furious a sign of US inefficiency? Was importing in a million Muslims per year in Germany, a sign of inefficiency?
They must be incompetent to be incapable of getting more in, offloading more guns. The alternative view to that is that they are intentionally doing so, that the numbers are limited to their methods and their methods are limited to their goals. The real goals, not the propaganda they used to convince the stupid sheep.
The fundamental difference between people who wish to believe that the problems the world or the US has is due to incompetence, is that they refuse to believe Evil is in Control. Those that are amenable to believing Evil is in Power, that the Hussein Regime is, was, a totalitarian regime backed by both the Leftist alliance and their founding member, the Democrat party, those people were more likely to go for "evil" vs "incompetence", "intent" vs "unintentional", "malice" over "mistake".
My position in 2008 was that the Hussein Regime was amoral...
Immoral, I think. Your position has consistently been that the other side is actively evil, except for the ones who are too slavish to think for themselves and are therefore merely passively evil. I'm aware of your position because you repeat it every day.
No, your position was that Hussein was immortal, rather than amoral. That Hussein had his own morality he was adhering to. I directly contradicted that circa 2008 and post afterwards.
I'm aware of your position because you repeat it every day.
You see the end result, but you do not remember observing the process, even though the incident happened right here.
A person might as well observe the end result of horsemanship and the manual written instructions, and think they fully understand the skill/details.
A chain of command, unified or not, cannot exist without people to direct the sheep. To confuse the sheep that follows orders with the shepherd is a mistake you wouldn't have made, if you truly understood the Leftist alliance or Islamic Jihad, Grim. Because you have not understood your enemies, it snowballs when you also don't understand your allies.
No, your position was that Hussein was immortal, rather than amoral. That Hussein had his own morality he was adhering to.
In that case he would be moral, neither immoral nor amoral. People do adopt moral codes contrary to mine. To my way of thinking, the question is less whether they are right and more whether or not the difference is acceptable. I can live easily with some moral differences. Others -- chiefly, the ones that aim at forcing my compliance -- must be contested.
Because you have not understood your enemies, it snowballs when you also don't understand your allies.
Are you my ally, Ymar?
Post a Comment