Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » 26 US Republican Governors (and 1 Democratic Gov) give ISIS exactly what they want (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: 26 US Republican Governors (and 1 Democratic Gov) give ISIS exactly what they want
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I wanted to reference sexual kinkiness rather than the aggression born of projected self hatred, I would have said "Dominance/submission" rather than sadomasochism.

Setting exact terms aside, you recognize that the way you have engaged me on this thread is not healthy, neh?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I think it's a lot healthier than the usual dance, Pete.

Your typical mechanisms here aren't viable, and I have long put up with them out of a general desire for decorum. But I think this is really just enabling you, and you need a firmer hand. I don't think being gentle with you has helped. [Frown]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When Syrian refugees were asked to list the greatest threat, 29 percent picked Iran, 22 percent picked Israel and 19 percent picked America. Only 10 percent viewed Islamic terrorism as a great threat.

Thirty-seven percent of Syrian refugees oppose US airstrikes on ISIS. 33% oppose the objective of destroying ISIS.

So, yeah. Let's get these guys loaded up in America. What could possibly go wrong with brining in thousands of people that see you as the greatest threat and oppose any actions against the worst terrorist organization in the world?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Thirty-seven percent of Syrian refugees oppose US airstrikes on ISIS. "

If you had friends and family in ISIS territory might you be concerned with Air strikes?

My grandfather was captured at the battle of the bulge. He got sore when US airstrikes hit his concentration camp. He never forgave the US air force. And yet he went on to serve the US in Korea, and retired a lt colonel. Disliking airstrikes doesn't make you a security threat.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Actually, I think it's a lot healthier than the usual dance, Pete.

Your typical mechanisms here aren't viable, and I have long put up with them out of a general desire for decorum. But I think this is really just enabling you, and you need a firmer hand. I don't think being gentle with you has helped. [Frown]

Dandy. Aside from your wildly inappropriate homoerotic "firm hand" banter [Frown] , I much prefer your middle school hysterics to the smug phony "politeness" of the last 14 years. As a bonus, your present routine means ornery a break from you every few days. Just keep an eye on your blood pressure, old boy.

++++++++

Edited to add, if OM is reading this, please don't let Tom goad you into banning him for over two weeks at a time. When you do that, he runs to Mrs Card and gets you replaced.

[ December 01, 2015, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, Raf, you realize we can pick and choose which refugees to take, right?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"please, feel free to identify one Mosque in the US which enforces this in any way."

Ah. So people actually murdered for apostasy or blasphemy don't count unless sentence is carried out by a mosque?

Doublethink, Pyr. Please don't go off rattling off irrelevant martial law codes that were written while Moses had Israel wandering, unless you believe that a significant number of Christians actually stone folks that gather stocks on the Sabbath. Or if you missed Jesus'defense of the woman taken in adultery.

Missionaries, even in the USA, fear approaching Muslims. Muslim converts to Christianity fear for their lives and their families. Christians who convert to Judaism or become Atheism, have no such fears here.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Also, Raf, you realize we can pick and choose which refugees to take, right?

Sure can!

quote:
The woman who took part in the ISIS-inspired San Bernardino massacre is linked to her native country's most notorious radical mosque, American officials believe.
Sources have told Daily Mail Online that US officials handed over information to their Pakistani counterparts about links between Tashfeen Malik and the Red Mosque in Islamabad.

The mosque is infamous for its links to violence and authorities in Pakistan are now considering taking action against its preacher, Maulana Abdul Aziz, after the disclosures by US officials.

CBS reports that Malik passed DHS screening for counterterrorism as part of the vetting for her visa.

Pick and choose, alright. Tell me, why should we assume they're going to do better? Or, was this a intentional pick by the government?

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, a conspiracy! Tell us why...?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, tell us all the difference between the screening for someone coming in as a fiancé of a US citizen vs the screening for someone coming in as a refugee.

But I am sure you don't know that there is a difference. So look it up. Summarize the salient differences. Then try to make your point again.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg, you provide the info for your own points yourself. If you have some belief that the DHS will not handle counterterrorism screening and another agency that does a better job will, then by all means sum it up for us. Look it up, give us alla link, then try to actually make a point about it rather than whatever that was you did. I'm sure you have it right at your fingertips ...

My point, that counterterror screening is failing, has been all too tragically made and proven.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And just as I hit add reply, proven again:
quote:
A man was stabbed in the ticket hall at Leytonstone station this evening by another man who witnesses say shouted "This is for Syria" as he slashed his throat.
Another three are thought to have been injured.

The Met Police said its counter-terrorism command unit is now investigating the incident.

US and UK, the screening sucks and people are dying.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do you want to do about it?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This tweet by Evitri Payet captures the liberal denial so perfectly:
quote:
Horrifying what's happened at Leytonstone.

There's a guy shouting at him "you're not muslim" so so true No religion promotes this nonsense

Yeah man, no true Scotsman....er, I mean, Muslim would do that!
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point is that they can't screen for what is in someone's mind.

So there is no way to stop someone with no record from getting in when their first and only act of terrorism is intended to be their last act on this Earth.

That's why all of this nonsense about the how effective screening is going to be is just a bad joke.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you might as well let everybody in, I guess, since people here are at least as deadly as people that want to come here.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if there are pitbulls running loose around the neighborhood mauling people to death already then we may as well set more loose?

Or maybe we've got enough violence on our plate already so we don't need another helping of it.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe the problem we should solve is violence, instead of over-reacting to the minuscule number of refugees who have been part of the problem. Syed Farook was born and raised in the US. I would call him a home-grown terrorist. His wife came here perfectly legally after extensive vetting, so we know that no vetting process can completely eliminate potential or future threats. Condoleezza Rice and every other senior member of Bush's WH said the same thing, and of the 750,000 refugees we let in after that only 3 were found to be terrorist plotters.

What do you want to do? Rafi G can't muster the effort to explain how to solve the problem, but maybe you can.

[ December 05, 2015, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, your assertion is that "counterterror screening is failing" - for that to be a valid statement requires that the screening for a fiance is identical to other forms of counterterror screening (as in that for a refugee).

Not my job to substantiate your assertions, just my perogative to point out that you haven't done so.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Resettle the refugees in parts of their own countries that are safest. If necessary send it a UN force to establish these safe zones. Also resettle Muslim refugees into other Muslim countries. Let the non-Muslim ones come here and to Europe or where ever they please since they will face persecution in Muslim countries.

You can say there have been few terrorist Muslim attacks but how many of the non-Muslim refugees or immigrants have carried out terrorist attacks? None is better than few.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The screening for the fiance was more thorough than refugee screening. And it still failed.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The screening for the fiance was more thorough than refugee screening.
Cherry, go back and do your homework, because you are wrong. If you disagree, then substantiate your assertion
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The screening for the fiance was able to use records from an intact government that was not in the middle of a civil war. It found nothing because there was nothing to find, and not in the same way there will be nothing to find in Syria. She was a good girl so there were no criminal records on her and no ties to radicals. She must have been at least well to do since her family had a maid.

How can the screening of Syrian refugees be more thorough when they are few if any records to check against?

Why don't you back up your assertion that refugee screening will be more thorough?

People can be radicals intent on causing harm without there being any record of it anywhere and no where or way for law enforcement to make the connection. This is because radicalization occurs in the mind and unless you can read their mind you will have no idea. And even more difficult, actually impossible, is to screen anyone for what is going to be in their mind once they get here.

If it sounds like I'm saying it's impossible to screen them to prevent this type of attack from happening again, that's exactly what I'm saying.

And everyone acknowledges this. No one disagrees. The only disagreement is that some people say it's worth bringing them here even though we can be sure some may engage in this type of terrorist attack and others say it's not worth it.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And if by thorough you mean they will be interviewed more often over a longer period of time just to make sure they and their families have their stories straight, that's not going to prevent a terrorist with no record and a good memory from slipping through. Why with everything we've seen people still choose to underestimate our enemy with wishful pie in the sky thinking is beyond me.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, Syed was born and raised in the US. There were no signs of radicalization on his part. The only potential outlier that has been reported was amassing a fairly impressive stockpile of weapons, including assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo. Why would anyone who lives in a condo, but never goes hunting or to a shooting range do that?

Isn't that kind of activity something we should keep an eye on?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Rafi, your assertion is that "counterterror screening is failing" - for that to be a valid statement requires that the screening for a fiance is identical to other forms of counterterror screening (as in that for a refugee).

Not my job to substantiate your assertions, just my perogative to point out that you haven't done so.

Apparently it's not your job to substantiate your assertions either. You just kind of make it up and go along and expect others to believe it. If you think it's wrong, prove it. Don't expect anyone to believe it just because you say it.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
The screening for the fiance was able to use records from an intact government that was not in the middle of a civil war. It found nothing because there was nothing to find, and not in the same way there will be nothing to find in Syria. She was a good girl so there were no criminal records on her and no ties to radicals. She must have been at least well to do since her family had a maid.

How can the screening of Syrian refugees be more thorough when they are few if any records to check against?

Why don't you back up your assertion that refugee screening will be more thorough?

People can be radicals intent on causing harm without there being any record of it anywhere and no where or way for law enforcement to make the connection. This is because radicalization occurs in the mind and unless you can read their mind you will have no idea. And even more difficult, actually impossible, is to screen anyone for what is going to be in their mind once they get here.

If it sounds like I'm saying it's impossible to screen them to prevent this type of attack from happening again, that's exactly what I'm saying.

And everyone acknowledges this. No one disagrees. The only disagreement is that some people say it's worth bringing them here even though we can be sure some may engage in this type of terrorist attack and others say it's not worth it.

Quoted for truth. Greg, you're up dude. [Wink]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Maybe the problem we should solve is violence"

Right, because that's only one problem. And disarming has worked so well for Sabra and Shatilla, for Bosnia, for Chicago ... where has disarming law abiders resulted in a drop in victims of violence?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do nothing.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Better nothing than something counterproductive. But better yet take measures that reduce the culture of violence. Attack the roots of violence. Increase prosperity. Shrink the geography of desperation and isolation.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lofty goals. How should we do it?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the female shooter got her visa in less than a month. Here's what it's like for refugees - an 18-24 month process:

quote:
All refugees taken in by the U.S. undergo extensive background checks. The small number from Syria are subject to additional layers of security screening.

“Of all the categories of persons entering the U.S., these refugees are the single most heavily screened and vetted,” explains Jana Mason, a senior adviser to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Here are answers to some of your questions about how the program works.

How are Syrian refugees referred to the U.S.?

The process begins with a referral from UNHCR. The U.N.’s refugee agency is responsible for registering some 15 million asylum seekers around the world, and providing aid and assistance until they are resettled abroad or (more likely) returned home once conditions ease. The registration process includes in-depth refugee interviews, home country reference checks and biological screening such as iris scans. Military combatants are weeded out.

Among those who pass background checks, a small percentage are referred for overseas resettlement based on criteria designed to determine the most vulnerable cases. This group may include survivors of torture, victims of sexual violence, targets of political persecution, the medically needy, families with multiple children and a female head of household.

What happens once a refugee is referred to the U.S.?

Our government performs its own intensive screening, a process that includes consultation from nine different government agencies. They meet weekly to review a refugee’s case file and, if appropriate, determine where in the U.S. the individual should be placed. When choosing where to place a refugee, officials consider factors such as existing family in the U.S., employment possibilities and special factors like access to needed medical treatment.

How do we know the refugees aren’t terrorists?

Every refugee goes through an intensive vetting process, but the precautions are increased for Syrians. Multiple law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies perform “the most rigorous screening of any traveler to the U.S.,” says a senior administration official. Among the agencies involved are the State Department, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS officer conducts in-person interviews with every applicant. Biometric information such as fingerprints are collected and matched against criminal databases. Biographical information such as past visa applications are scrutinized to ensure the applicant’s story coheres.

What percentage of applicants “pass” the screening process?

Just over 50%.

How long does the whole process take?

Eighteen to 24 months on average.

link
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Time Magazine, that's impartial.

Ok, 18-24 months. How consistent is that? I'm sure some take that timeframe. I'm sure some don't. But, given your hysteria over how desperate it is to bring Muslims to America, are you going to stand by that 2 year window? Under this story, refugees fleeing today will not get here until Christmas 2017.

Let's see:
quote:
Once the US State Department receives their case files it employs NGO contractors to pre-screen them for eligibility for refugee status, then they are subjected to health and security checks.

Officers from the Department of Homeland Security fly from Washington to the camps and conduct interviews with candidates, seeking to weed out what a US official called "liars, criminals and

Yep. DHS. And contractors. The DHS that missed Malik's obviously fake address and contractors that have little to no accountability. Hey, sounds great, let's get a million of them.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets take a peek at what the left is proposing we let in: British police ignore the abuse of 1,400 children.
quote:
The people of Rotherham know that it is unsafe for a girl to take a taxi-ride from someone with Asian features; they know that Pakistani Muslims often do not treat white girls with the respect that they treat girls from their own community. They know, and have known over fifteen years, that there are gangs of predators on the look-out for vulnerable girls, and that the gangs are for the most part Asian young men who see English society not as the community to which they belong, but as a sexual hunting ground. But they dare not express this knowledge, in either words or deed.
With that, it should come as no surprise that 95% of all child rape and molestation convictions were committed by Muslims.

Hey, what vetting process are they using in the UK? Doesn't sound much better than ours.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Lofty goals. How should we do it?

Cheap public transport.

Public works programs where the young get Roosevelt style jobs for upgrading roads and the infrastructure.

Promote a unifying pluralist culture.

Pay anyone in the country to get sterilized reversible, no questions asked.

Legalize pot and save prisons for those who really endanger society.

Give immigration priority to relatives of the most productive law abiding residents. Highest productive would be someone who starts legal businesses that have nothing to do with the sex trade and put American citizens into jobs with medical insurance.

Other programs that increase public participation and decrease isolation and alienation. If you put your mind to it I am sure you could come up with some.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Add: Mental health counseling and medication! I suspect that a substantial number of our mass shootings would have been avoided if certain people have been on the right medications.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think, at this point, a renewed focus on mental health is a necessity. Some of the mass shootings we have seen over the last few years are the result of disturbed individuals and their acts may have been prevented with appropriate and timely treatment(or maybe not). I think it's worth the investment.

As important, we need to realize the problem and name it. Muslims have a problem. No, not all of course but enough. They have a culture and religion that tolerate if not outright promotes horrific abuses of the innocent. This is undeniable. The first step is accepting that reality so that we can deal with it. Simply denying it and allowing it into our society is not going to help.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I think, at this point, a renewed focus on mental health is a necessity. Some of the mass shootings we have seen over the last few years are the result of disturbed individuals and their acts may have been prevented with appropriate and timely treatment(or maybe not). I think it's worth the investment.

The American landscape is currently set up almost expressly to promote bad mental health and anxiety. Between consumerist advertising culture, partisan dislike of half of one's countrymen, exploiting the middle class and poor to benefit the wealthy elite, and treating health care like a luxury, it's no surprise that the U.S. is riddled with crazed individuals. I'll throw in there a distinctly anti-individualist narcissism mentality that has been allowed to pass itself off for the last 30 years as the next step in individualism. "Each person, you and me and everyone else too, matters" has been replaced with "I matter and everyone better recognize that." The latter is not actually individualism but is rather the seed whose growth results in the diminishing of the individual.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree particularly re advertising. It(s universal that inequity creates a motive for crime. I think some advertising increases the sense of inequity, and hence the crime rate
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My experience living in Vegas, a city more ripe with mental illness than any other I have seen, bears up in my mind the connection between conspicuous consumption and mental illness.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1