Pesident Clinton

[buffo]

This point originated with the question, "why do I have a problem with Muslims"

While several people have added to your point in various ways, I thought that your larger point was always "Why (or how) do(es) my feelings about Muslims affect my choice for President." After all, the thread did begin with the presidential race, right? If I've misunderstood your position or intent, then I apologize.

Also, I included my rebuttal of Nii's post in the same post to you, which may have needlessly complicated things for you if you do not agree with all of his points.

when a point is made and posted with a dozen others, the responses can be selective and move further along a tangent without actually addressing a particular point.

I've tried to address each point, but I agree that some are more salient than others. Indeed, it was one of Nii's posts that brought me back into this thread in the first place.

That being said, I agree that some focus is needed, otherwise the posts grow exponential.

This is actually a debating strategy

It can be, yes, but I'm not using it as a strategy. I'm trying to be complete. I'm not consciously trying to obscure things by addressing all points.

Maybe I should post the original question in a new post?

If you want to discuss your specific thoughts on Islam, then yeah - maybe another thread would be best.

Adam

PS: Quick reply to Logsquared:

I have never really bought into the "good ole days" idea. Even though I made some negative assertions about people in my state earlier, I honestly believe we are getting better as a whole.

I agree that as a general rule, things are better now. My concern is the dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric surrounding this election cycle that reminds me of the 1950's. I don't want us to give up what we've worked so hard to attain as a nation. In the past we had a few leaders who were truly outstanding, and they served us well even when the general populace harbored some very ugly (and decidedly un-American) ideas. Today I do not see any outstanding leaders, and while I believe on the whole our populace is more enlightened than it has ever been, I also see some of those same ugly ideas coming back.

I think Trump's popularity is party due to people thinking he is some sort of "quick fix".

Agreed.

[planters]

I thought that your larger point was always "Why (or how) do(es) my feelings about Muslims affect my choice for President." After all, the thread did begin with the presidential race, right? If I've misunderstood your position or intent, then I apologize.

No, you are correct. That is the larger context, but the discussion is moving away from the point that started this particular discussion and has now expanded to become unwieldy.

It can be, yes, but I'm not using it as a strategy. I'm trying to be complete. I'm not consciously trying to obscure things by addressing all points.

Fair enough.

[Nii]

Yes, it is your term. Or rather, one you have appropriated as a result of the news outlets you've been listening to.

Former Belgian Prime Minister's Security advisor called their no go zones no go zones. Is that good enough for you?
Either way, call it what you want, "islamic ghetto", anything, it doesn't matter for the points discussed here.

When Swami countered that other sources deny such a thing as a true no-go zone (where there is no law enforcement presence at all), your explanation is that because someone people (including some police) feel threatened, that counts as a no go zone.

No, for the second time, that's the second definition of a no-go zone. It's not a new definiton some people started using. We are talking about Europe not Africa or Asia, what's so surprising that the second definition is used to described areas of cities on that continent?

My counter to that is that there are areas here in our country right now that meet your criteria and then some, yet no one is seriously proposing a change in national policy because of this.

I hear you. It's a problem, I personally think it's a problem and don't disagree it should be taken more seriously. I don't appreciate you assuming I don't merely because in this thead I'm discussing islamic no go zones and not US ghettos.

Because US ghettos are closer to home, and thus are more likely to affect you or me.

Okay, to put this to rest, I don't care if it's near me or near my cousin in Europe. It's not any less of an issue for me. I get that it is for you. Let's move on.

If I'm not overly concerned about these threats, why would I be overly concerned about troubled areas in some European communities? And more to the point, why would I seriously consider changing US foreign policy based on this minimal threat?

I've already explain why I think you should.

If you want to discuss threats to Europe, you should probably be posting in the Brexit thread, not here.

Maybe.

Bzzt! Wrong answer. We don't persecute people based on their beliefs, remember? That's why America was founded.

We hold people accountable for their ACTIONS. Not their beliefs.

Who said holding people accountable or persecution? How is controlling your border and deciding who gets in result in their persecution?
It's the right answer, if you had read the US constitution you'd know the president has the power to deny certain groups of people the right to access US. What Trump is proposing to do as president is a right given to him by the constitution. Yeah... talk about what America was founded on.

As an aside, I find it so interesting that the same people here in the US who rail fervently against Sharia law have no problem quoting the Bible to advance their own version of what is right and wrong.

I'm an atheist and Bible has many bad points. Are you aware of any state where Bible is part of the law? What's the proportion of islamic terror attacks vs christian terror attacks? Perhaps that's why so few people talk about it?

OK, that was a cheap shot, I admit. But the general tone of discourse in our country today is not nearly what I think it should be.

I agree it is. But don't fit me in a group without knowing who I am.

Except we're not moving in the same direction. You're just assuming that we will.

You want me to link to statistics?

And murder is currently happening right here in the USA, at a far more alarming rate than any caused by terrorists. But you'd rather worry about terrorism? That's not rational.

Okay this is getting silly. buffo, we can all worry for several things at the same time.

It absolutely is about numbers. If you have a 1 in 100 million chance of being murdered by a radical Islamic terrorist's bomb verses a 1 in 10,000 chance of being murdered by a street thug with a stolen handgun, which one is the greater threat? Which one is worth spending our limited resources on?

I just explained in my previous reply how it's actually saving resources.

No, I did not say that. I ASKED where the voices of reason were.

Come on, it wasn't a rhetorical question?

Let's do exactly that. How many deaths here in the USA due to radical Islamic terrorism so far this year? I'd say none

I'd say Orlando.

[buffo]

what's so surprising that the second definition is used to described areas of cities on that continent?

Because it's an inflammatory use of the word that intentionally over-states the problem. The (former) security advisor to the Belgian PM was making a political statement, and the media ran with it. (Just to be clear, we *ARE* talking about Brice De Ruvier, correct?)

Tellingly, the people living in the neighborhood in question (Molenbeek) do not share his opinion. From a shopkeeper working in the train station: “Yes, we seem to attract a lot of problems,” he says. “But don’t get me wrong: this is mostly a happy place. If there is any extremism here, I just haven’t seen it.”

That's from an article on the Paris attacks last year published in the Independent, and yes, they took the "no go zone" tagline and ran with it even as their "source on the ground" admitted it was overblown. Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6735551.html

What is surprising is how many people read the first half of that article and thought "Oh no, terrorism is taking over Belgium", rather than reading to the end when someone living in the heart of the city contradicts the entire tone of the article. More to the point, which one has more to gain by stretching the truth? The out-going security advisor, or some nameless shopkeeper who sees the vast majority of the people in the neighborhood every day?

Don't get me wrong. In an area with close to 30% unemployment, you're going to have problems. Big problems. And those problems will only get worse unless you address the poverty issue. But this is a problem for Belgium to work out. We can certainly offer suggestions, and maybe even some aid, but I fail to see why you feel this is such a pressing issue for the US right now. For sure you have not convinced me that it's risen to the level that would warrant a change in our foreign policy!

Re: US ghetto crime...

I hear you. It's a problem, I personally think it's a problem and don't disagree it should be taken more seriously. I don't appreciate you assuming I don't merely because in this thead I'm discussing islamic no go zones and not US ghettos.

It's because of the disproportionate severity you assign to this problem in Belgium. You are conflating the issue into something severe enough to warrant changes in US policy. So, yeah, I'm rightfully skeptical.

It's as if you showed up at the emergency room with a bullet wound in your chest, and all the nurses wanted to do was talk to you about the fact that you are 25 pounds overweight and are thus at increased risk of heart disease and stroke. If that happened, you would be rightfully outraged, and would immediately tell them to worry about fixing the damned hole in your chest before being concerned with your weight. One is a real, credible threat to your life. The other is a long-term increased risk factor - one among many - that really isn't an issue right now. You'd be wondering what these nurses were smoking and why they would even bother discussing your weight, let alone with such urgency.

I don't care if it's near me or near my cousin in Europe. It's not any less of an issue for me.

Serious question then: Are you concerned that the genocidal violence in Africa might one day threaten you or your cousin? After all, it's not near to you or him, but if you don't care about distance, then this should also concern you, yes? And surely the atrocities being committed there are far worse than anything currently happening in Europe...

Are you starting to see the disconnect now?

I've already explain why I think you should.

Why I should what? Why I should be concerned about the events, or why I should advocate changing US foreign policy based on them? One of these is very different from the other.

Who said holding people accountable or persecution?

YOU did, when you said this: "Not letting thousands of people with completely different culture into your country without checking what they believe in". You can't persecute someone for what they believe in!

the president has the power to deny certain groups of people the right to access US

And every time that power has been used, we lost a little more of our humanity. It bothers me greatly when we are willing to compromise our core principles simply because it is CONVENIENT. Remember the Japanese interment camps during World War II? That wasn't even an immigration issue - those were US citizens stripped of their liberty! All in the name of national security.

The president has lots of powers at his disposal. None of them should be used without serious consideration. I do not agree that Trump has fully considered the issue. (Any more than Hillary fully considered the issue before she set up her private e-mail server away from prying eyes, but that is yet another discussion.)

I'm an atheist and Bible has many bad points.

Correction: the Bible is positively littered with bad points and outright contradictions. The Q'oran is no better. (In fact, the case could be made that parts of it are worse.) The point is that many people here in our country advocate a legal system based on the Bible (however loosely you choose to interpret it), yet they can't stand the idea of a legal system based off the Q'oran. I find that both amusing and troubling.

Are you aware of any state where Bible is part of the law?

Of course not, because the 1st amendment prohibits it. But I know of several states that have tried sneaking things in, only to be slapped down by the courts on constitutionality grounds.

What's the proportion of islamic terror attacks vs christian terror attacks? Perhaps that's why so few people talk about it?

The difference is that Planned Parenthood clinics are not located in France, or Belgium, but in our own neighborhoods.

You want me to link to statistics?

Are you telling me you have statistics that demonstrate radical Islamic terrorism is moving to the US? Particularly in light of statements from ISIS itself to the contrary?

we can all worry for several things at the same time.

No, actually, you can't. You'll be paralyzed by inaction. Look up "Mean World Syndrome" sometime. Worrying about each and every possible risk is irrational and harmful. Focus on what matters. Acknowledge that there is evil elsewhere that you have little to no effect on, and get on with your life. And for damned sure don't start changing US policy based on non-credible threats. The unintentional consequences far outweigh any reduction in terrorism threat level.

Re: Orlando attacks being in any way tied to ISIS

I'd say Orlando.

You can't be serious.?. Do you honestly believe that a gay man joined ISIS? Do you have even the most basic understanding of Islam? If so, then you must understand how foolish this sounds.

The Orlando shooter was a copy-cat. He invoked the ISIS name because he knew it would garner more attention and would likely inflame his parents, with which he had a tumultuous relationship. (Go figure: they were Muslim, and as such were even more intolerant of his homosexuality than your average Baptist family would have been.)

What's more: ISIS knows that by encouraging copy-cat killers, they get their name in the news, which is all that matters to them. That's why they've publicly stated that "you don't need to ask permission". It's a win-win for them. (Personally, I think we should all donate to LGBT-charities and say it was done for ISIS! That might help, but I digress...)

There is zero evidence that he ever had any contact with anyone in ISIS. At most, ISIS is something he learned about through the media.

On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that he acted alone, out of rage, after suffering through years of humiliation, rejection, and internal conflict.

Bottom line: the biggest threat that radical Islamic terrorism poses to our nation is the emotional reaction we seem to be having to it. This reaction is disproportionate to the threat, and there are some decidedly un-American ideas being banded about. Couple that with an election year and the possibility that either candidate could ride this emotional tide into the White House (and then USE it for their own ends) is something that should give every voter pause.

Adam

[Nii]

Because it's an inflammatory use of the word that intentionally over-states the problem.

Does it really? Any evidence to think that? I don't disagree the media knows how to scare people, but is it this phrase by itself scary and has an effect on people's views by itself? Sounds like an unfalsifiable claim to me.

The (former) security advisor to the Belgian PM was making a political statement, and the media ran with it.

Okay, I guess what the officials say isn't a valid source because they are political statements. Okay, lets go with what regular people leaving in those areas as you chose have to say then. Fine by me.

Tellingly, the people living in the neighborhood in question (Molenbeek) do not share his opinion. From a shopkeeper working in the train station: “Yes, we seem to attract a lot of problems,” he says. “But don’t get me wrong: this is mostly a happy place. If there is any extremism here, I just haven’t seen it.”

People didn't see a man having sexual relations with minors who were donated to him by their parents because they almost never left the house. They were shocked when it was revealed, they were after all neighbors. Is one person living there giving interview saying he hasn't noticed extremists all you need to conclude all is well?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thXCb1VUBDg

And how is some place by some person being intentionally falsely called a no go zone a sign that its all fake?

Don't get me wrong. In an area with close to 30% unemployment, you're going to have problems. Big problems. And those problems will only get worse unless you address the poverty issue.

No doubt unemployment is an issue that affects people and makes them commit crimes, there is however no reason why poverty makes them commit religious hate crimes specifically. Many terrorists are not in poverty either so there's no direct and necessary link between the two.

I fail to see why you feel this is such a pressing issue for the US right now. For sure you have not convinced me that it's risen to the level that would warrant a change in our foreign policy!

Same type of people who went to those countries and formed those ghettos, if you wish, are going to come to the US and form the same types of ghettos here, while they could easily resettle in their neighboring mulsim states. Why should the result be any different?

Serious question then: Are you concerned that the genocidal violence in Africa might one day threaten you or your cousin?

No because genocide is not part of some African cultures, that's the difference. Radical islam is, for the minority of the population, but when the population is over a billion the minority is a significant number by itself. Radical islamists bring their culture/religion with them, africans don't bring genocide with them because it's not part of their culture, religion or ideology.

Basically, there's nothing xenophobic or racist in wanting to filter radical islamists from muslims the same way it isnt when filtering fascists from WWII era germans. Would you oppose the border control not letting every german in without checking anything during WWII?

Why I should what? Why I should be concerned about the events, or why I should advocate changing US foreign policy based on them?

Both.

YOU did, when you said this: "Not letting thousands of people with completely different culture into your country without checking what they believe in". You can't persecute someone for what they believe in!

No I didn't, because deciding who gets in your country is a normal part of international law and practice. Not letting someone in does not mean they are persecuted.

And every time that power has been used, we lost a little more of our humanity.

Therefore it's a bad thing. No , not really, misuse of that right does not mean it's a bad thing to have.
My point is why are you saying this country has been founded on good principles when you are against articles of the constitution? That one doesn't count? You're pretty selective with which principles should be counted.

Remember the Japanese interment camps during World War II? That wasn't even an immigration issue - those were US citizens stripped of their liberty! All in the name of national security.

Exactly it wasn't an immigration issue, nobody is talking about concentration camps now. So this analogy is invalid.

Correction: the Bible is positively littered with bad points and outright contradictions. The Q'oran is no better.

Fine by me, like I said I'm an atheist, I don't care.

The point is that many people here in our country advocate a legal system based on the Bible (however loosely you choose to interpret it), yet they can't stand the idea of a legal system based off the Q'oran. I find that both amusing and troubling.

You have time to find that troubling though, huh?

The difference is that Planned Parenthood clinics are not located in France, or Belgium, but in our own neighborhoods.

Like I said I don't care where it's located and whether it affects me personally.

Are you telling me you have statistics that demonstrate radical Islamic terrorism is moving to the US?

I'm telling you that the same type of people who went to those countries and formed those ghettos, if you wish, are going to come to the US and form the same types of ghettos here, while they could easily resettle in their neighboring mulsim states. Why should the result be any different?

No, actually, you can't. You'll be paralyzed by inaction. Look up "Mean World Syndrome" sometime. Worrying about each and every possible risk is irrational and harmful. Focus on what matters.

Oh bullshit, it doesn't have to be either one issue or "every possible risk". I do think this matters.

You can't be serious.?. Do you honestly believe that a gay man joined ISIS? Do you have even the most basic understanding of Islam? If so, then you must understand how foolish this sounds.

Oh sure, he was gay and his response to his struggle was killing bunch of gay people. Makes perfect sense. It as obviously not an indoctrination by his islamist father, not inspired by radical islam and ISIS.
And who mentioned ISIS? I was talking about death count from islamic terrorism, nothing specific about ISIS or that he was an actual ISIS member.

There is zero evidence that he ever had any contact with anyone in ISIS. At most, ISIS is something he learned about through the media.

Again, I didn't argue he was a member of ISIS, I said he was a radical islamic terrorist. You counterargument is he killed about 50 gay people because he was gay and hated for it? Why and how can you state this as a proven fact? How does that make any sense?

[dchammonds]

The point is that many people here in our country advocate a legal system based on the Bible (however loosely you choose to interpret it), yet they can't stand the idea of a legal system based off the Q'oran.

That ship sailed a couple centuries ago...

https://christianheritagefellowship....nding-fathers/

Meanwhile, Gene Simmons takes a tumble... Maybe Trump's nomination to the party of Abraham Lincoln had something to do with it.

[buffo]

I don't disagree the media knows how to scare people, but is it this phrase by itself scary and has an effect on people's views by itself?

I believe so, yes. Tellingly, the current security advisor to the PM is not echoing De Ruvier's claims. I think that speaks volumes.

People didn't see a man having sexual relations with minors who were donated to him by their parents because they almost never left the house. They were shocked when it was revealed, they were after all neighbors.

And if we were worried about a wave of sexual molestation terror sweeping the nation, this would be one example demonstrating it. But we're not talking about statutory rape being on the rise, we're talking about radical Islamic terrorism being on the rise, specifically in a poor borough in Belgium. That is something very public and visible. And my point of sharing the "man on the ground" interview is to show that they (the public) do not see this, at least not to the level that De Ruvier claims.

Is one person living there giving interview saying he hasn't noticed extremists all you need to conclude all is well?

Of course not. There are many sources, on both sides of the issue. My point is that based on what I have read (and listened to), the problem is being overstated. I further believe that it is being overstated intentionally, at least by some, for political aims. For others, it's simply a case of over-reacting to the sensationalist coverage. Throw in a little xenophobia and/or racism, and you've got a stew going...

And how is some place by some person being intentionally falsely called a no go zone a sign that its all fake?

I do not claim that it is all fake. I fully acknowledge that there ARE radical Islamic elements in Europe. Once again, I am saying that the problem is being overstated, and many people here in the US are reacting disproportionately.

there is however no reason why poverty makes them commit religious hate crimes specifically.

Poverty makes people desperate. Desperation makes people easy to recruit. Here in the US, the usual path is into a gang, since ISIS isn't exactly popular here. But in areas where radical Islam is favored, the path can be towards something like ISIS instead.

Many terrorists are not in poverty either so there's no direct and necessary link between the two.

Agreed, although this is a separate discussion. (Saudi Arabia, for example, and specifically the royal family.) But that does not change the fact that poverty is often a catalyst for people joining unsavory organizations.

Same type of people who went to those countries and formed those ghettos, if you wish, are going to come to the US and form the same types of ghettos here

Prove this. Because the vast majority of Muslims who have come to the US have not done this so far. You think this Belgian ghetto sprung up overnight? Why don't we already have the same thing here?

Why should the result be any different?

Because live in the US is vastly different that Europe? Come on, surely you can think of a dozen reasons just off the top of your head.

No because genocide is not part of some African cultures, that's the difference.

OK, I'll grant you that. So you are more concerned about radical Islam because it's a cultural belief, rather than a means to an end, as genocide is in Africa? I disagree with this, but I can at least follow your thoughts here.

there's nothing xenophobic or racist in wanting to filter radical islamists from muslims

If you filter based on their BELIEFS, it's wrong. Period. It doesn't matter if someone is a Christian, a Muslim, a Satanist, an Athiest, or a Pastafarian for that matter. Our country was founded on the basis that everyone has a right to their own beliefs. There's no provision for filtering out certain sects of any given religion.

the same way it isnt when filtering fascists from WWII era germans.

Which is why so many former Nazis ended up working for Nasa, right? OK, even Verner Von Braun admitted that he only went along with the Nazis because they would fund his rocket research, but make no mistake: that man developed weapons which were used in anger against the allied forces.

Also, fascism isn't a religion, and thus is not protected by the Constitution. Islam is a religion (yes, even the radical Shiites), and is thus protected by definition.

Not letting someone in does not mean they are persecuted.

It does when your filter criteria is their religion.

My point is why are you saying this country has been founded on good principles when you are against articles of the constitution?

I'm not against the constitution. In contrast, I'm very much in favor of it. But the executive privilege clause has been abused in the past, by several presidents. That is what I was referring to.

I'm telling you that the same type of people who went to those countries and formed those ghettos, if you wish, are going to come to the US and form the same types of ghettos here

And I'm telling you that they won't. Historically we don't see the same problems here in the US that Europe is facing. As I mentioned above, the US is vastly different that most, if not all of Europe. And the unsavory neighborhoods in Belgium (and elsewhere) did not spring up overnight. If this were truly a global problem, then we should see them here in the US as well. (Or indeed, in any developed 1st world nation for that matter.)

If you want to claim this will happen, you're going to need some solid evidence. Because right now the history of our nation's development over the past 20 years is strongly refuting your claims.

it doesn't have to be either one issue or "every possible risk". I do think this matters.

Fine. You think your weight matters when you're in the Emergency Room waiting to be treated for a gunshot wound. I think you are being unreasonable. I think we have far more important matters to focus on. I think our current presidential election is being derailed by this issue. We are focusing on minutia while ignoring far more pressing issues.

Oh sure, he was gay and his response to his struggle was killing bunch of gay people. Makes perfect sense.

Actually, it does. Have you never wondered why so many overtly homophobic politicians turn out to be closeted homosexuals? Have you never spoken with a gay man or woman and asked them about their inner conflicts as they tried to come to terms with their sexuality? Lashing out at the LGBT community is COMMON among conflicted homosexuals.

It as obviously not an indoctrination by his islamist father

No doubt his family's strict Islamic faith contributed massively to this poor mans troubles. I stated as much in my previous post.\

And who mentioned ISIS? I was talking about death count from islamic terrorism

I did, because the shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS right before he started shooting up the nightclub. And because ISIS is the most visible face for radical Islamic terrorism right now. And because it's clear that despite his claim, there is no evidence that he really was in ISIS, or any other Islamic terrorist group. He was a lone gunman, tormented by years of rejection, guilt, self-loathing, and persecution by his own family.

None of this was caused by the Islamic ghettos in Europe. More importantly: None of this would have been prevented by a ban on radical Islamic immigration to the US. What might have prevented it (maybe) is some basic tolerance and support from his family and friends.

I said he was a radical islamic terrorist.

On what grounds? Just because his family was Muslim? Just because at the very end, he said he was affiliated with ISIS (even though we now know this is false)?

Can't you see where you are going with this? This is exactly why I don't want a change on US foreign policy. To prevent this man's family from entering the US, you would need to ban all Muslims.

His father was not a terrorist. His mother was not a terrorist. They were not members of ISIS, or any other terrorist organization. There is literally no criteria you could have used to prevent them entry that would not also disenfranchise ALL Muslims.

This is EXACTLY why this debate is so important. In an effort to curb a statistical anomaly (yes, the shooting was a tragedy, but mass shootings account for a tiny number of total violent deaths each year), people are seriously suggesting a radical departure from our nation's core principles. That is reckless!

You accused me earlier of ignoring the constitution. I now ask you: are you willing to deny freedom of religion to all immigrants in the vain hope that it will prevent another Orlando-style shooting? And if so, do you honestly believe this is a good trade-off, let alone the best solution we can think of?

Adam

[planters]

Buffo,

Your posts are too long and you are dissembling even if you are not doing this intentionally. I have made my position clear over a number of earlier posts and if you and a couple of others disagree that's fine as there are a number of readers that do agree with me.

It comes down to this. I will vote for Trump for the many reasons I have given throughout this long thread. There is only one other choice. No one can claim they are still undecided as in "I like Bernie or Rubio seems cute".

Who will you vote for, work for, fund etc? Staying home is not an answer although it was a frequent response earlier. It is not an answer, it is a dodge leaving the decision (and your choice secret so you can't be criticized... we know that game) in the hands of others while still pontificating on the issues.

And you too, swami, who will you vote for?

[mixedgas]

Something to think about, courtesy of my favorite British Comedy Sci Fi Show.....

https://youtu.be/2IzX6b1YJHI?t=1009
!
Note the signs on the wall in the opening scene of the clip...
!
Quote "She stole an Apple of the People".
!
This is a decisive election for the US. But it is not what it seems... However we need to look internally for the source of many of our troubles. We our building our own internal paranoia, and it is NOT healthy. The media in its various forms is not helping matters much. The last few shootings give a whole new definition to "Lone Gunman". I believe we need to get back to showing compassion, communicating in person, and loving one another, not nights of viewing gratuitous violence on TV, Games, and being addicted to "The Internet". Everything is the latest sound byte or twitter, or text. There is no filtering, no time to think, no social cohesion, no integration of thought, just reaction, and it's addictive. Many people no longer have physical, real, friendships in PERSON.
!
Then we need to make it very clear to those behind the scenes, that enough is enough. The Supreme Court decisions allowing huge donations under cover of anonymity and SuperPacs have radically twisted our two party system to a multi-fragment mess.
!
A Professor in College many years ago predicted this societal fragmentation and constant close elections as a product of gratuitous instantaneous communications. Many in her class laughed at her in the 1990s, but her "Atomization Theory"" turned out to be spot on. It got my attention at the time, and I wrote a paper on it in 1995, and got slapped down for it.
Dr. McClendon if your still alive, I want my paper's F changed to an A... My paper was the effect of digital sensory experiences on relations in a classroom. I got one thing very wrong, I figured you needed a VR Suite or VR Suit to achieve this level of addiction, not a handheld with a two inch by four inch screen.
!
The last gal I dated, texted constantly, it was a textlationship, and for her, communicating in person had become difficult. Even when she knew I was at work, she was constantly pinging me with texts, and asking what I was doing. This lady, a public servant, was the public face of her agency for twenty years. She knew how to talk and relate to people, but it was easier and addictive to jump into the virtual world.. She could never be "Away" from me. That more then anything, ended our relationship. If that is the face of modern human communications in the future, we're in trouble as a society.
!

As for security, Welcome back to the 1960s... These ill gunmen are now convinced that there is no personal social consequence to their actions, so they will not hesitate to act. How you cure that, I have no idea. I will bet that a few of them were preventable if those around them had got them professional help or a change in their social situation and location. Professional help like that is hard to come by in the US, it costs around 170$ an hour, and is not something that insurance likes to pay for. Its nearly impossible to get an ill person help, unless they consent or are arrested. Treatment and evaluation are generally only available during business hours, making it difficult for the working stiffs.
!
How long before we become like certain large cities in South America where the police sometimes hunt down and kill orphans, beggars, the mentally ill and infirm, gang members etc...
!
Steve

[mojo]

It's not "my" "so called" no go zones.
Perhaps you are blissfully unaware of what is going on in Europe? You say no go zones do not exist. I have said that if you google "Sweden 55 no go zones" you will see the Swedish police acknowledging the existence of no go zones. That's officials saying it. You also have planters saying he was in Birmingham. You can disregard the latter as anecdotal evidence and the official sources as racist zealot fascist politician making those statements. What will it take to prove anything to you?.

Don't know from where you have all of all of this knowledge but please stop talking about "no go areas" here in Europe. These definitely DO NOT exist as proposed by Planters or others. Neither in Belgium, Germany, UK, France, ... if you talk about areas with issues regarding high crime stats, social issues because of unemployment or so - I agree, thx.
-mojo-