CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Obama Holds Out For Work Place Violence In California
“It is possible that this is terrorist-related, but we don’t know; it is also possible this was workplace-related,” Obama said, adding, “we don’t know why they did it.”Obama added that it was important to understand the “nature of the workplace relationship” between the individuals to fully understand the attacks, raising the possibility that it could be “mixed motives” for the attacks.The attacks were carried out at a facility for developmentally disabled adults by Syed Rezwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, a husband-and-wife team in California who were both heavily armed.
Why is it Obama can't call Radical Islamist terror attacks for what they are ?
He spent more than 30,000 dollars on guns and bombs according to Fox news, plus he went to Saudi Arabia and had contact with people with extremist views and Obama still holds out hope for a workplace violence. Obama clearly is out of his league on handling Islamist radicals. He does not have a clue.
Btw, what was the vetting process on his wife, how did that turn out. Obviously we did not vet her properly, now did we. But yet, we have people who think we can properly vet 10,000 Syrian refugees with little background information.
What's the difference? I thought you had researched the Syrian vetting process. You know, the vetting process that is different than any other ethnicity. The vetting process that you have apparently been talking about without understanding at all.
That is entirely beside the point, not to mention Constitutionally questionable. The point is that you have been making all of these claims about the vetting process, apparently without having done any research as to what the vetting process actually entails!
I know exactly what the vetting process entails. I have read all about it. Once again, why are you corresponding with me if you think I am an fool.
Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him. If I am a fool like you are making me out to believe, and then you follow me through a debate that makes you a fool also, so congratulations.
I know exactly what the vetting process entails. I have read all about it. Once again, why are you corresponding with me if you think I am an fool.
If that was true, you would know that ethnicity makes a difference, yet you asked me what difference it made that she was Pakistani instead of Syrian.
Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him. If I am a fool like you are making me out to believe, and then you follow me through a debate that makes you a fool also, so congratulations.
Following is different from disagreeing. Strange that I needed to say that.
Edit: And I never called you a fool. I simply think you are speaking out of ignorance.
Ethnicity should never make a difference when it comes to Muslims, they are all the same. We are infidels to them all. But you obviously disagree, so there is no point in discussing it any further.
You think I am speaking out of ignorance simply because I disagree with you. That makes your very arrogant and conceited.
You never called me a fool, but that is what you are implying. So, why don't you and I choose different user names. Do you want to be fool 1 and me fool 2 or vice versa.
Ethnicity should never make a difference when it comes to Muslims, they are all the same.
Objectively false, but that hardly seems to matter to you.
We are infidels to them all. But you obviously disagree, so there is no point in discussing it any further.
Why are you on a debate website you do not wish to discuss things with people you disagree with?
You think I am speaking out of ignorance simply because I disagree with you
No, I don't. I have demonstrate why I think you are speaking out of ignorance: Because you claim to have researched the vetting process, yet you were unaware that Syrians are the ones subjected the the heightened security and improved vetting process that everyone (including yourself) has talked about. That has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, and everything to know with you either not doing sufficient research, or lying about researching the asylum vetting process.
You never called me a fool, but that is what you are implying.
Again, no it isn't. I am implying you spoke out of ignorance, that's it.
So, why don't you and I choose different user names. Do you want to be fool 1 and me fool 2 or vice versa.
I'll take Fool A, you can take Fool 1, that way we can argue as to whether A or 1 are superior.
It is not objectively false. That is your opinion, nothing more. Many people agree with me that Muslims of all ethnicity believe in the same goal, the removal of the infidels.
I never speak out of ignorance, that is your opinion. I told you I know all about the vetting process, it is not my problem if you don't believe me. Now you are possibly accusing me of lying. Why would you want to have a discussion with someone who is a liar. I don't get it.
All Muslims should be vetted to the highest level possible, no exceptions. I will state again that these Syrians are not being vetted to the highest possible degree since nobody is actually going into Syria and verifying who they are by asking neighbors, co workers, employers, family, and friends all about the perspective asylum seeker. Til that happens, every step has not been taken, despite what Obama and the rest of the Democrats tell you.
It is not objectively false. That is your opinion, nothing more.
No no, it is objectively false. To claim that any two people are the same is objectively false. Beyond that, Islam itself is not uniform, and the differences between not only forms of Islam, but the nature of the varying Islamic nations proves diversity exists.
Many people agree with me that Muslims of all ethnicity believe in the same goal, the removal of the infidels.
And those people are wrong, objectively. It's like claiming that all Christians are the same. It just makes absolutely no logical sense, and flies in the face of objective reality. Again, that simply is not my opinion. That is me knowing that religions, and therefore religious beliefs, are not uniform, particularly when over a billion and a half people are involved.
I never speak out of ignorance, that is your opinion. I told you I know all about the vetting process, it is not my problem if you don't believe me.
So if you do know all about the vetting process, explain to me why you asked how ethnicity was relevant, please.
Now you are possibly accusing me of lying. Why would you want to have a discussion with someone who is a liar. I don't get it.
No, I simply said that was a possibility.
All Muslims should be vetted to the highest level possible, no exceptions.
And that still remains Constitutionally questionable.
I will state again that these Syrians are not being vetted to the highest possible degree since nobody is actually going into Syria and verifying who they are by asking neighbors, co workers, employers, family, and friends all about the perspective asylum seeker.
Actually, they do. That is part of what happens in the U.N. before they are recommended to the United States for consideration. Again, I thought you said you have researched the vetting process?
It does not matter if a Muslim is white, black, Arab, etc, the goal is the same. To remove the infidels from the planet. Where did I claim two people are the same? I am talking about Muslims in general, many who want the same goal, irregardless of ethnicity.
Over 300 million Muslims support or sympathize with ISIS world wide. They come from all ethnic backgrounds, don't kid yourself.
Show me an article that states the UN goes door to door inside ISIS controlled neighborhoods and does countless interviews with people. I have searched extensively and could not find an article, maybe you had better luck than me.
It does not matter if a Muslim is white, black, Arab, etc, the goal is the same.
Repeating it does not make it true. You are trying to claim that individuals all respond to a belief system identically, which has never happened in the history of humanity, particularly among over one and a half billion people.
Where did I claim two people are the same? I am talking about Muslims in general, many who want the same goal, irregardless of ethnicity.
You claimed that not only are two people the same, you claimed that 1.6 BILLION people are the same.
Over 300 million Muslims support or sympathize with ISIS world wide. They come from all ethnic backgrounds, don't kid yourself.
While I would like to see a citation for that, your figures would show that less than one fifth of all Muslims "support or sympathize with ISIS". To claim that means every Muslim does simply is not logical, and actually works against your claim as it demonstrates diversity in opinion amongst Muslims.
That's a rather quick one, and I don't have the time to find the actual UNCHR document on the process, but I will find it and send it to you when I get back from work later.
I have searched extensively and could not find an article, maybe you had better luck than me.
You searched extensively, yet you didn't find out that ethnicity helps determine what form of vetting you go through?
I never claimed all Muslims are the same. I said many are the same, irregardless of their ethnic background. Take out children under the age of say 10, and that number is probably around a quarter of all Muslims who support or sympathize with ISIS. That is a huge percentage of people with a radical ideology when compared to people of all other religions. I never said any two people are the same.
The link you gave said absolutely nothing about in person interviews inside of Syria. I am waiting for that one. Like I said, I could not find any information, maybe you can.
The difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is that us conservatives want an extensive vetting process on ALL Muslims whereas you liberals do not based on what ethnicity the Muslim is. Just a difference of opinion.
You keep saying it is constitutionally questionable. So what, that will be up to the supreme court to decide eventually.
I never claimed all Muslims are the same. I said many are the same, irregardless of their ethnic background.
Actually you did: "Ethnicity should never make a difference when it comes to Muslims, they are all the same." Again, "they are all the same" (emphasis mine).
Take out children under the age of say 10, and that number is probably around a quarter of all Muslims who support or sympathize with ISIS. That is a huge percentage of people with a radical ideology when compared to people of all other religions. I never said any two people are the same.
Are you able to provide literally any evidence to back that up?
I never said any two people are the same.
I directly quoted you saying all 1.6 billion of them are the same.
The link you gave said absolutely nothing about in person interviews inside of Syria. I am waiting for that one. Like I said, I could not find any information, maybe you can.
"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."
Please read the link before claiming what is or is not in it.
The difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is that us conservatives want an extensive vetting process on ALL Muslims whereas you liberals do not based on what ethnicity the Muslim is. Just a difference of opinion.
First, I'm not even a liberal. Second, you are claiming the difference is that Conservatives want something that is not only unconstitutional, but would have literally no impact on this. This woman went through the damn K-1 Visa process, you realize that right? It's an entirely different process.
You keep saying it is constitutionally questionable. So what, that will be up to the supreme court to decide eventually.
Gotta love this mentality. "Who cares if it is Unconstitutional, if it gets overthrow it gets overthrown". Never mind the wasted time, money, and the fact that you are doing exactly what ISIS has expressly said it wants the Western World to do.
I did read the entire link. Nowhere does it say they go into Syria and get the most relevant information needed to vet these people. Please show me where they go INTO Syria and do background checks. That link said nothing of the sort. Refugee interviews can be done on the phone, reference checks can be done on a computer, still not one word about in depth personal interviews within the Syrian border. Please show me a link where they go into Syria.
You claim it is unconstitutional but until the supreme court decides then it may or may not be. Congress and the president pass laws or sign executive orders all the time that may or may not be constitutional. Many times our government passes laws they know in advance it will be overturned but they do it anyway.
Of course I know she went through the k-1 Visa. Looks like we need to end that for any Muslim wanting to come here. If the supreme court overturns it, so be it. The supreme court overturns many laws and rulings.
You seem to be under the impression that if we do everything that ISIS wants us to do they will leave us alone. That is delusional thinking.
Oh, and I want to address a comment you made on one of FromWithin's debates:
What you said is:
"The phrase is "you never want a serious crisis go to waste." It was said by Rahm, Rambo, dead fish Emanuel, Obama's chief advisor."
What he actually said is:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. I think America as a whole in 1973 and 1974, and not just my view but obviously the administration's, missed the opportunity to deal with the energy crisis that was before us."
To not use that way of thinking is nonsensical. When a crisis happens, you bounce back and fix it in a way you wouldn't have before. That is a mindset that has been used by reasonable people across history, on both the Right and the Left.
The same person that is trying to reform gun laws? Is it false that all the guns that were bought were legal? Nope. They were all legal. These people spent 30k on guns and no one even knew!
Something is definitely wrong. This could have been stopped. If you want a gun to defend yourself, get a $100 pistol with 6 bullets. You don't need a couple hundred AK-47's (which are legal to buy to defend yourself.
And even if you get them, it should be possible for the government to know that you bought a suspicious amount so they can keep tabs on you!Seriously what is wrong with people?!
And I agree, the vetting process was broken! But if she wasn't vetted properly, how did she get access to a gun?!
P.S. Never cite fox news when you are trying to make a point XD
What might be wrong with purchasing AK-47's ? Which you stated were legal. Were the weapons you claim legal in California ? Do you know this to be fact or is it just an assumption ? Because you didn't show a link to backup your claim of legality.
What might be wrong with purchasing ak-47's? Why would anyone that ISN'T trying to kill many people need a gun that is built for killing lots of people. And they are legal. I don't need to provide a link for that, it is common knowledge.
What is a weapon that is too powerful ? Government should decide what is too powerful a weapon ? What if your a hunter you should be harnessed by the choice of weapon as put forth by the Government ? All you are saying here is Government should decide the weapons Americans can buy as the Government puts restraints on the 2nd Amendment.
Hey Outlaw, of course he wants the government to decide the issue. I am assuming he wants the government to decide many aspects of both of our lives since we the people are to stupid to know any better what is good for us.
Well... If someone is breaking in to your home with a gun, you probably live in the middle of nowhere. My position is this: if you live in the middle of nowhere you can do whatever the hell you want.
However, if you live in an actual town or city with other people, GET A SECURITY SYSTEM INSTEAD OF A GUN!
I would feel SO unsafe if everyone in my state could legally carry around an AK. People in Texas say it makes them feel safer, so they can do whatever they please. But don't you dare try to make my entire community feel unsafe by bringing your guns.
3 people from my state have died from a terror attack (boston bombings). They were crazed, radicalized Islamists and I won't let them scare me. 3 lives were ended, but once the bombers were captured or killed, life resumed back to normal.
It is the police's job to protect people, not the average citizens. If the average citizen wants to help people, become a trained police officers who know when to pull the trigger.
I have little to no trust for other people based on what I see in the news, so I don't believe anyonebut trained professionals should have guns!
Also, if someone has an ak-47, it will kill you. If someone has a pistol, it will also most likely kill you, or at least maim you so you will not be able to fight back.
Farook, who was a U.S. citizen, had reportedly travelled to Pakistan and returned to the U.S. in July 2014. Under U.S. immigration law, the K-1-visa-holding fiancée of an American citizen is permitted “to travel to the United States and marry his or her U.S. citizen sponsor within 90 days of arrival.”
After the couple married, Malik was given a green card, becoming a lawful, permanent resident.
It can take as little as three years for a K-1 visa recipient to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
If you are not a naturalized citizen you are an immigrant !
No I meant the original poster of this chain of arguments:
"Btw, what was the vetting process on his wife, how did that turn out. Obviously we did not vet her properly, now did we. But yet, we have people who think we can properly vet 10,000 Syrian refugees with little background information."
Obama was raised in a Muslim household (his dad was Muslim) in a Muslim country (Indonesia) and has said the calling to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world, so he clearly has sympathies to the religion of pedobear worship.
The WH still refuses to admit what the FBI is saying.
Obama controls the military (Benghazi happens). Obama controls the DOJ (cops get assassinated). Obama controls the IRS and (right wing political groups are punished). Obama controls the FED and the (economy stalls without free money.)
Obama appoints the FBI director and (fill in the blank).
"“It is possible that this was terrorist related, but we don’t know" (Before talking about "work place violence).
The WH still refuses to admit what the FBI is saying.
Wait. First you say the FBI is controlled by the White House, which would mean that they had the FBI say it was terrorism. Now you are saying they "refuse to admit what the FBI is saying". Which is it?
Obama controls the military (Benghazi happens)
Yeah, yeah and there were 13 embassy attacks under his predecessor, and the Benghazi investigation came up with a whole lotta nothing. Was it unfortunate? Yes. Was his reaction reasonable? No. Is the way the Right (yourself included) uses it for political points reasonable? No.
Obama controls the DOJ (cops get assassinated).
As they have always been, how is that new? And why not point out the fact that violent crime as a whole is down? Could it be because it is inconvenient?
Obama controls the IRS and (right wing political groups are punished).
No they weren't, they were put under increased scrutiny which didn't actually lead to any adverse effects.
Obama controls the FED and the (economy stalls without free money.)
Utter nonsense. He took over a stalled economy, and you are trying to pin it on him. This is low, I expect far better from you.
Obama appoints the FBI director and (fill in the blank).
Still waiting for you to explain your contradiction of implications.
Everyone saw it coming, and everyone expected it. That changes absolutely nothing. When it comes to criminal investigations, it is completely and utterly irresponsible to jump to conclusions based on prejudice. You know that, I know that, damn near everyone knows that. Both the Right and the Left bring that up in different situations.
I just bring it up in all situations.
And since you were one of the people saying that the FBI just does what Obama says, does that mean you think Obama told them to call it terrorism? "Regardless of the facts"?
The police have been told from up above, to not say what they all know... that it is obviouisly terrorism.(this came from the horses mouth) Obama is the most corrupt insecure politician of my lifetime.
He told all Americans that the Benghazi killings was from a video when he knew it was not(all to help his election). He knows this is terrorism but the truth would hurt all his lies. He must drag it out until people move on to other news and then we will see a small mention of the obvious truth.
Are you truly that indoctrinated or do you just play the fool to deceive.
I can't help it if you do not watch Fox news where they tell the news that the Liberal biased media outlet refuses to show. If you want to see the truth, watch Fox news. That is where i saw the person in authority saying how the police have been told to say nothing until 1000% that terrorism can not be denied. It's the same everytime with every event. I can't believe you can be that conditioned to not see it.
Aside from the number of demonstrable lies FOX has been guilty of, why not just provide an actual clip?
It really shouldn't be hard. Then again, when I try googling it, all I find are media outlets (all of which you would call liberal) saying there is evidence that they were radicalized. After all, Obama even said it is entirely possible they were Muslim Terrorists, but simply had the audacity to say wait for proof.
Not sure why that is somehow a horrible thing now, considering you have insulted people for not waiting for evidence in past cases.
What kind of fool has not watched Obama for seven long years and STILL not know how he operates? He will never admit the OBVIOUS truth no matter how much undeniable evidence there is. He is an extremist who lives and breathes his ideology of transforming America.
Yup, you ask for evidence to the obvious. How predictable. Either you live a life of blindness to what's going on, or you are a deciever pretending you have no clue.
What's funny is how incapable you are of ever providing evidence to back up "the obvious", and how blind you are to how much that undermines the legitimacy your claims.
What is the process to get someone banned from CD? I feel like some people don't want to argue/debate. They just want to ban people that disagree and troll.
This fromwithin character gets on my nerves.
Also there should be a minimum age to join. 12 year old trolls should not be aloud to join.
It's almost impossible to get banned from CD. There's a user who still frequents this site that, under another account, intentionally sent people virus-ridden links within debates.
The owner, Andy (addltd), doesn't really moderate the website at all.
Are you on drugs? I said all along it was terrorism. I think you have a hard time reading and comprehending the english language. Yet one more reason why I ban you.
The police have been told from up above, to not say what they all know... that it is obviouisly terrorism.(this came from the horses mouth) Obama is the most corrupt insecure politician of my lifetime.
This whole conversation wasn't about whether or not it was terrorism, it was about the reasons it wasn't declared terrorism right off the bat. You made claims that Obama had intentionally forced the FBI and the police to avoid calling it terrorism (despite the fact that the first thing Obama said was that it might have been terrorism), and now the FBI declared it terrorism as soon as concrete evidence came out proving it.
Which means you were either wrong about Obama, or wrong about the FBI. Which is it?
Make up your mind. Is he supposed to pretend he knows everything about the situation before he has the information or is he supposed to wait until he knows what actually happened?
She covered all of her tracks by getting knocked up. I doubt we would have deported a pregnant woman with an American father. That would not be the compassionate thing to do by us Americans. She was one bright young lady. She had this all figured out far, far, in advance.
Here is the kicker. This future jihadist baby, now an American citizen thanks to the 14th amendment, and having an American father, is now entitled to Social Security benefits for the next 18 years, courtesy of the US taxpayers. I don't think there are any exceptions to this rule, if someone knows please post it.
Depending on how long her daddy worked, the monthly amount can range from a couple of hundred to over a thousand. I can see it now someday.
This future jihadist asks how did mommy and daddy died. Answer: They died fighting the infidels. This baby jihadist, now 18, and with tons of money courtesy of the US taxpayer goes out and purchases guns and bombs and avenges mommy and daddies death in the name of Allah. At least we have something to look forward to. Too bad we can't ship her out Fed Ex to Pakistan and avoid any potential problems in the future.
The term ''Muslim Terrorist'' is creeping into reports here in the U.K. Apparently an arsenal of weapons was found at the home of the assassins including pipe bombs and a variety of firearms. B.B.C., reports that evidence of contact with ''the filth'' ( Muslim terrorists) has been found on their social media site. Even if, or what is more likely, when, it is confirmed that the assassins were Muslim filth Obama and his cronies will continue to urge the American people to ''show compassion'' to the SO CALLED Muslim refugees and welcome what is in effect, the enemy onto U.S. soil. This reckless policy is the equivalent of injecting yourself and your family with a virulent strain of cancer. Is Obama profiting from the illegal trafficking of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants? The danger to which he is exposing the citizens of the United States is no less than criminal neglect of one of the prime responsibilities of his office.
First, we have Obama blaming global warming, and now we have CAIR blaming Americans and the west for the terrorist attacks. At least some blame, they said.
I hope someone does not say something really stupid like blaming terrorism on radical Muslims who interpret the Koran in the wrong way. That would be a big no no. (sarcasm)
Also, Hillary came out for more extensive background checks on guns. Maybe she should instead ask for a more extensive and thorough procedure into the visa program on K-1. It is very thorough and extensive according to Mark Toner of the State Department. Maybe they should reevaluate it. I am willing to bet they didn't do personal interviews with her family, friends, co workers, employers inside of her home country, now did they. Did they tear her life upside down to find out if she was radical in any way. I think not.
An immigration lawyer said that a lot of our lifeblood depends on foreigners. I for one am willing to bet that if we stopped essentially all immigration this country would not only survive but continue to excel.
You guys are saying that the FBI won't call it terrorism because they are under Obama's rule. Yet they just said it was Islamic Terrorism. That means you are either wrong about Obama, or wrong about the FBI. Take your pick.
Obama has never called the acts of terror committed by Radical Islamist what you are now saying he has called Islamic Terrorist. I would like to see a link to where Obama has called ISIS Islamic Terrorist !
