- Boards
- Current Events
- Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban
|
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-of-trump-travel-ban/
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries. It's almost like the President of the United States is well within his rights.
Dielman on Rivers: "I've tried to get him to say s--- or f--- and all he'll ever do is say, 'Golly gee, I can't do that."
|
|
Also North Korea...who has nukes and ICBMs...which is serious.
DO NOT DEFY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://i.imgur.com/LokFB.jpg |
|
When has anything the SC said ever been enforced?
I am Mogar, God of Irony and The Devourer of Topics.
http://i.imgtc.com/tHc3mIo.png http://i.imgtc.com/PYxw8Lm.png |
|
Guess they're consistent. Islamaphobia ok, homophopbia ok.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/houston-rebuffed-by-supreme-court-on-same-sex-benefits-policy
River Song: Well, I was off to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I thought 'Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think i'll kill the Fuhrer'
|
|
Webmaster4531 posted...
ThePrinceFish posted...Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded. That's more of an issue with CBS, ABC, etc. than with TC, since it's just copy and pasting. I mean, unless you're going to contact those news orgs. that put it out like that, it seems moot to blame TC. |
|
Webmaster4531 posted...
ThePrinceFish posted...Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded. If Ginsburg and Sotomayor got their way, you would be correct. Luckily they are just two ultra liberal obstructionists.
Dielman on Rivers: "I've tried to get him to say s--- or f--- and all he'll ever do is say, 'Golly gee, I can't do that."
|
|
HiddenRoar posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...ThePrinceFish posted...Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded. A little critical thinking from anyone(news orgs/TC) isn't too much to ask.
Ad Hominem.
|
|
Waluigi7 posted...
Why those six countries? Because they have no functional central government with which the US can verify and vet potential refugees. Those countries are such pits of lawlessness that it's effectively impossible to prove that someone claiming to be from there is, in fact, from there. EDIT: That is why the Obama administration selected those 6 countries originally.
"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
|
|
ThePrinceFish posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...ThePrinceFish posted...Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded. Oh, so that was struck down? You chose a weird portion to quote.
Ad Hominem.
|
|
Webmaster4531 posted...
ThePrinceFish posted...Webmaster4531 posted...ThePrinceFish posted...Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded. I quoted the entirety of what was in the breaking article when I accessed it. It's not my fault you read the challenges from the lower courts after being told that the challenges will not apply and fail to square that away in your head. Maybe some critical thinking?
Dielman on Rivers: "I've tried to get him to say s--- or f--- and all he'll ever do is say, 'Golly gee, I can't do that."
|
|
ThePrinceFish posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...ThePrinceFish posted...Webmaster4531 posted...ThePrinceFish posted...Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded. Got em.
"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
|
|
mario2000 posted...
Waluigi7 posted...Why those six countries? You realize you're making fun of how many Muslims pronounce their own religion, right? Very intolerant
"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
|
|
Are you trying to say that a republican hijacked supreme Court would support the Republican ideals of racism and xenophobia? Oh my. The surprise I am feeling right now.
Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board.
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether |
|
s0nicfan posted...
Because they have no functional central government with which the US can verify and vet potential refugees. Those countries are such pits of lawlessness that it's effectively impossible to prove that someone claiming to be from there is, in fact, from there. as far as iran goes you're literally clueless |
|
P4wn4g3 posted...
Are you trying to say that a republican hijacked supreme Court would support the Republican ideals of racism and xenophobia? Oh my. The surprise I am feeling right now. Odd that Kagan and Breyer didn't stand with Sotomayor and Ginsburg if this is what you're going with.
Dielman on Rivers: "I've tried to get him to say s--- or f--- and all he'll ever do is say, 'Golly gee, I can't do that."
|
|
KhlavicLanguage posted...
s0nicfan posted...Because they have no functional central government with which the US can verify and vet potential refugees. Those countries are such pits of lawlessness that it's effectively impossible to prove that someone claiming to be from there is, in fact, from there. Iran is a dictatorship
ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya |
|
ThePrinceFish posted...
P4wn4g3 posted...Are you trying to say that a republican hijacked supreme Court would support the Republican ideals of racism and xenophobia? Oh my. The surprise I am feeling right now. I mean, they have to save face where they can you know.
Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board.
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether |
|
Letron_James posted...
Nice Its in the constitution that presidents can decide who comes in. No need for theatrics
"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
|
|
Tropicalwood posted...
KhlavicLanguage posted...s0nicfan posted...Because they have no functional central government with which the US can verify and vet potential refugees. Those countries are such pits of lawlessness that it's effectively impossible to prove that someone claiming to be from there is, in fact, from there. L-o-l So that makes it justifiable? Do you know how many dictatorships aren't banned, ya ignant?
Posted with GameRaven 3.3
|
|
I'll take this ban seriously as soon as Saudi Arabia becomes a part of it. I guess Syria and Chad just need to become valuable to us and they'll find their way off the list. This is just half-assed virtue signaling trying to score brownie points with some of our worst and dullest.
|
|
ChainedRedone posted...
L-o-l https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis Let's not forget that North Korea was banned by Trump. But please, continue defending Iran, it really helps your cause.
ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya |
|
Tropicalwood posted...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks Yet no Saudi ban. |
|
Capn Circus posted...
Letron_James posted...Nice http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/here_are_all_the_parts_of_the_constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html
Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash |
|
mario2000 posted...
Capn Circus posted...Letron_James posted...Nice Lol, you want me to believe Slate over the Supreme Court? You've got to be joking
"I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
|
|
Capn Circus posted...
mario2000 posted...Capn Circus posted...Letron_James posted...Nice Point out specifically what you disagree with.
Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash |
|
Asherlee10 posted...
I saw on Reddit that this isn't the actual SCOTUS ruling, but a temporary "okay" while the travel ban is in litigation (or is it junction?). You are correct. The Supreme Court lifted an injunction, it didn't rule on the constitutionality of the case per se. Injunctions have an extremely high burden of proof (with the notion that irreparable damage will be done if the law isn't stopped prematurely). Honestly, the fact that the original travel ban was struck down this way is a testament to how shitty it was. Most requests for injunctions don't succeed. So, the travel ban isn't out of the woods yet. The legal challenges will make their way through the proper channels and the constitutionality of the travel ban will be litigated in full.
https://i.imgur.com/WyFIJkF.gif
This is America, where a lying, cheating degenerate can prosper. |
|
_Near_ posted...
Asherlee10 posted...I saw on Reddit that this isn't the actual SCOTUS ruling, but a temporary "okay" while the travel ban is in litigation (or is it junction?). injunction was the word I was looking for. Thank you.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
|
|
mario2000 posted...
Capn Circus posted...mario2000 posted...Capn Circus posted...Letron_James posted...Nice Why not start with the part where the article calls it Trump's "Muslim Ban"?
"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
|
|
the travel ban is probably for the best all things considered. :v it just peeves me that Trump intentionally left his business partner's countries off the list despite them being just as risky.
|
|
s0nicfan posted...
mario2000 posted...Capn Circus posted...mario2000 posted...Capn Circus posted...Letron_James posted...Nice What is incorrect about that statement?
Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash |
|
OpheliaAdenade posted...
the travel ban is probably for the best all things considered. :v it just peeves me that Trump intentionally left his business partner's countries off the list despite them being just as risky. He didn't leave them out. The countries on the ban were all listed by the Obama administration as being especially prone to produce terrorists. Ain't Trump's fault the countries with his property weren't included in Obama's list
Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
-George Orwell |
|
Mal_Fet posted...
OpheliaAdenade posted...the travel ban is probably for the best all things considered. :v it just peeves me that Trump intentionally left his business partner's countries off the list despite them being just as risky. why didn't he revise the list instead of just copying Obama's homework? :u |
|
is this the ban that prevented a woman from traveling to the US to save her sister s life with a transplant ?
she was a 100% match maybe this was solved by now it was a long time ago
There is no sound, no voice, no cry in all the world that can be heard... until someone listens.
|
|
s0nicfan posted...
mario2000 posted...What is incorrect about that statement? What does that have to do with the travel ban's intent?
Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash |
- Boards
- Current Events
- Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban
- Boards
- Current Events
- Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban
mario2000 posted...s0nicfan posted...
mario2000 posted...
What is incorrect about that statement?
The part where it includes non-muslims.
What does that have to do with the travel ban's intent?
Everything? Even YOU are calling it the "travel ban" and not the "muslim ban" like slate is, so at some level you already understand that there's a difference between the two."History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless WaltzThe simple fact of the matter is that people only oppose this because it's Trump doing it. When Obama had a travel ban on African countries to protect from Ebola, did you hear everyone screaming that it was racist?
Keeping dangerous people out of the country is kind of the government's job.Professionals are predictable- it's the amateurs who are dangerous.s0nicfan posted...mario2000 posted...
s0nicfan posted...
mario2000 posted...
What is incorrect about that statement?
The part where it includes non-muslims.
What does that have to do with the travel ban's intent?
Everything? Even YOU are calling it the "travel ban" and not the "muslim ban" like slate is, so at some level you already understand that there's a difference between the two.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashr4X0r posted...The simple fact of the matter is that people only oppose this because it's Trump doing it. When Obama had a travel ban on African countries to protect from Ebola, did you hear everyone screaming that it was racist?
Keeping dangerous people out of the country is kind of the government's job.
Not everyone is so simpleminded, though this is telling as far as your own stance is concerned.Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board.
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aetherAs I understand this just means the injunction has been lifted while the decision goes through the courts?CE's Resident Scotsman.
http://i.imgur.com/ILz2ZbV.jpgcreativerealms posted...Maybe next time he can ban travel from countries terrorists actually came from. None of the terrorist attacks in America were done by people from any of those countries.
But that would take more effort than the decision process they used of throwing darts at a map of the middle east.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashcreativerealms posted...Maybe next time he can ban travel from countries terrorists actually came from. None of the terrorist attacks in America were done by people from any of those countries.
Ban travel from known terror harboring cities in America!Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board.
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aetherpinky0926 posted...As I understand this just means the injunction has been lifted while the decision goes through the courts?
Yes, though it's not a good sign.
r4X0r posted...The simple fact of the matter is that people only oppose this because it's Trump doing it. When Obama had a travel ban on African countries to protect from Ebola, did you hear everyone screaming that it was racist?
Keeping dangerous people out of the country is kind of the government's job.
Holy shit what a dumb comparison.Cel Damage! Tonight at 8:00!creativerealms posted...Maybe next time he can ban travel from countries terrorists actually came from. None of the terrorist attacks in America were done by people from any of those countries.
What, so we should let people from places like Somalia pour into the US until things like this start happening here?? That's some remarkably bizarre logic.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mogadishu-kills-people-somalia
Mogadishu truck bomb: 500 casualties in Somalia’s worst terrorist attack
It's like I said before. People only oppose it because it's Trump who did it. If Obama did this, he would be held up as a champion of national security. Trump wants to keep terrorism out of the United States, oh he's an idiot. He's a racist, bigoted Islamophobic dolt.Professionals are predictable- it's the amateurs who are dangerous.creativerealms posted...Maybe next time he can ban travel from countries terrorists actually came from. None of the terrorist attacks in America were done by people from any of those countries.
That's mostly true for Europe too. Most European Jihadists had family origins in North Africa, particularly Morocco and Algeria.Do people in here really think they know more about the CIA or whatever government agency - whose job it is - to research and figure out where the high risk terrorists are coming from?The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poli' meaning many, and the word 'ticks' meaning blood sucking parasites.r4X0r posted...creativerealms posted...
Maybe next time he can ban travel from countries terrorists actually came from. None of the terrorist attacks in America were done by people from any of those countries.
What, so we should let people from places like Somalia pour into the US until things like this start happening here?? That's some remarkably bizarre logic.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mogadishu-kills-people-somalia
Mogadishu truck bomb: 500 casualties in Somalia’s worst terrorist attack
It's like I said before. People only oppose it because it's Trump who did it. If Obama did this, he would be held up as a champion of national security. Trump wants to keep terrorism out of the United States, oh he's an idiot. He's a racist, bigoted Islamophobic dolt.
How many mass shootings have happened in America in just this year?Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...r4X0r posted...
creativerealms posted...
Maybe next time he can ban travel from countries terrorists actually came from. None of the terrorist attacks in America were done by people from any of those countries.
What, so we should let people from places like Somalia pour into the US until things like this start happening here?? That's some remarkably bizarre logic.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mogadishu-kills-people-somalia
Mogadishu truck bomb: 500 casualties in Somalia’s worst terrorist attack
It's like I said before. People only oppose it because it's Trump who did it. If Obama did this, he would be held up as a champion of national security. Trump wants to keep terrorism out of the United States, oh he's an idiot. He's a racist, bigoted Islamophobic dolt.
How many mass shootings have happened in America in just this year?
Including or not including gang violence?Funbazooka posted...Why do leftists believe the U.S. should not be allowed to defend its sovereignty??
No one is saying that. Build a better strawman next time.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashr4X0r posted...mario2000 posted...
How many mass shootings have happened in America in just this year?
Yes, we already have some violence, so we should actively import more. That makes PERFECT sense.
From: someone who believes there is a direct correlation between one's propensity towards violence and their melanin levels.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...r4X0r posted...
creativerealms posted...
Maybe next time he can ban travel from countries terrorists actually came from. None of the terrorist attacks in America were done by people from any of those countries.
What, so we should let people from places like Somalia pour into the US until things like this start happening here?? That's some remarkably bizarre logic.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mogadishu-kills-people-somalia
Mogadishu truck bomb: 500 casualties in Somalia’s worst terrorist attack
It's like I said before. People only oppose it because it's Trump who did it. If Obama did this, he would be held up as a champion of national security. Trump wants to keep terrorism out of the United States, oh he's an idiot. He's a racist, bigoted Islamophobic dolt.
How many mass shootings have happened in America in just this year?
Excluding domestic and gang related, 19.Caution998 posted...Do people in here really think they know more about the CIA or whatever government agency - whose job it is - to research and figure out where the high risk terrorists are coming from?
You not knowing shit doesn't stop you talking about the Mueller investigation.Ad Hominem.mario2000 posted...Funbazooka posted...
Why do leftists believe the U.S. should not be allowed to defend its sovereignty??
No one is saying that. Build a better strawman next time.
Travel ban = "Islamophobia! Xenophobia! Racism! One step away from fascism!"
This topic is peppered with that nonsense. That's what I take issue with here.I'll defend any man's Funbazooka!Ryven posted...319 days later:
Refugees:
•0 Attacks
•0 Deaths
•4 Travel Bans
Americans:
•56,863 Shootings
•14,335 Deaths
•326 Mass Shootings
•0 Gun Bans
'murica.
Mass shooting stat is misleading and intentionally done to make people think incidents like Vegas happen every day.
And what exactly would a gun ban do but disarm law abiding citizens?
Dont act stupid.Funbazooka posted...mario2000 posted...
Funbazooka posted...
Why do leftists believe the U.S. should not be allowed to defend its sovereignty??
No one is saying that. Build a better strawman next time.
Travel ban = "Islamophobia! Xenophobia! Racism! One step away from fascism!"
This topic is peppered with that nonsense. That's what I take issue with here.
Brown people coming to the US will not endanger its sovereignty. Relax.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -NekoslashFunbazooka posted...mario2000 posted...
Funbazooka posted...
Why do leftists believe the U.S. should not be allowed to defend its sovereignty??
No one is saying that. Build a better strawman next time.
Travel ban = "Islamophobia! Xenophobia! Racism! One step away from fascism!"
This topic is peppered with that nonsense. That's what I take issue with here.
It's too bad that Trump originally called for a complete shutdown of Muslim immigration after San Bernardino. It's also too bad that Trump once tweeted, "London has a Muslim problem" and recently retweeted three anti-Muslim videos. Trump clearly has an issue with Muslims in general. Any "travel ban" is tainted by Trump's bigotry. Same with the border wall (which unlike the travel ban, we do need)._RETS_ posted...Ryven posted...
319 days later:
Refugees:
•0 Attacks
•0 Deaths
•4 Travel Bans
Americans:
•56,863 Shootings
•14,335 Deaths
•326 Mass Shootings
•0 Gun Bans
'murica.
Mass shooting stat is misleading and intentionally done to make people think incidents like Vegas happen every day.
And what exactly would a gun ban do but disarm law abiding citizens?
Dont act stupid.
So a mass shooting needs to be on the level of Vegas for it to be worth worrying about?Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash_RETS_ posted...Ryven posted...
319 days later:
Refugees:
•0 Attacks
•0 Deaths
•4 Travel Bans
Americans:
•56,863 Shootings
•14,335 Deaths
•326 Mass Shootings
•0 Gun Bans
'murica.
Mass shooting stat is misleading and intentionally done to make people think incidents like Vegas happen every day.
And what exactly would a gun ban do but disarm law abiding citizens?
Dont act stupid.
Those stats are not only about mass shootings.Ammonitida posted..._RETS_ posted...
Ryven posted...
319 days later:
Refugees:
•0 Attacks
•0 Deaths
•4 Travel Bans
Americans:
•56,863 Shootings
•14,335 Deaths
•326 Mass Shootings
•0 Gun Bans
'murica.
Mass shooting stat is misleading and intentionally done to make people think incidents like Vegas happen every day.
And what exactly would a gun ban do but disarm law abiding citizens?
Dont act stupid.
Those stats are not only about mass shootings.
Which is why I specifically referred to the mass shooting stat. If there is a point to be made, it can be made without misrepresentation.mario2000 posted...How is it misrepresentation?
Because it is used to imply that things like Vegas or San Antonio are rampant and happening daily when in actuality a huge portion of the number is gang violence. It is an inflated number used to fear longer for gun control, which wouldn't do much to stop gang violence anyway.
Obviously 1 situation like Vegas is too many. But there is a more honest way to argue than lumping in Chicago's weekend totalsmario2000 posted..._RETS_ posted...
Ryven posted...
319 days later:
Refugees:
•0 Attacks
•0 Deaths
•4 Travel Bans
Americans:
•56,863 Shootings
•14,335 Deaths
•326 Mass Shootings
•0 Gun Bans
'murica.
Mass shooting stat is misleading and intentionally done to make people think incidents like Vegas happen every day.
And what exactly would a gun ban do but disarm law abiding citizens?
Dont act stupid.
So a mass shooting needs to be on the level of Vegas for it to be worth worrying about?Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...mario2000 posted...
_RETS_ posted...
Ryven posted...
319 days later:
Refugees:
•0 Attacks
•0 Deaths
•4 Travel Bans
Americans:
•56,863 Shootings
•14,335 Deaths
•326 Mass Shootings
•0 Gun Bans
'murica.
Mass shooting stat is misleading and intentionally done to make people think incidents like Vegas happen every day.
And what exactly would a gun ban do but disarm law abiding citizens?
Dont act stupid.
So a mass shooting needs to be on the level of Vegas for it to be worth worrying about?
Not at all what I said. If you want to argue about gun violence, lumping in gang violence is dishonest and done to inflate the number and fear monger.Not at all what I said. If you want to argue about gun violence, lumping in gang violence is dishonest and done to inflate the number and fear monger.
OK, I'll humor you.
So we have both mass shooting violence and gang violence, and they need to be differentiated because....reasons.
How does this help the argument that America is supposedly a perfectly peaceful place that will become a violent hellhole if we continue to allow brown Muslims in?Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Not at all what I said. If you want to argue about gun violence, lumping in gang violence is dishonest and done to inflate the number and fear monger.
OK, I'll humor you.
So we have both mass shooting violence and gang violence, and they need to be differentiated because....reasons.
How does this help the argument that America is supposedly a perfectly peaceful place that will become a violent hellhole if we continue to allow brown Muslims in?
They should be differentiated for the sake of honest argument. Don't act like the inflated mass shooting number is used as a condemnation of white men's propensity to perpetrate mass shootings, when in reality that number is largely minorities.
And Islam as a religion is shown daily, worldwide to be extremely violent and incompatible with western nations. Obviously there are peaceful Muslims. But vetting should be done of them trying to enter the country. If a travel ban is necessary in order to install more thorough processes and let countries on the list revise their systems of accounting for their citizens, then so be it.
If we have a violence issue here, why invite more Violence by not having standards in place?
Additionally, the guy who gave that inflated stat did so to argue in favor of a gun ban, which would have no effect at all on gang violence moreso than it would law abiding citizens.
You can't use a big scary number to argue for a gun ban while ignoring that the majority of that number is made of populations that the gun ban wouldn't affect.Ammonitida posted...Funbazooka posted...
mario2000 posted...
Funbazooka posted...
Why do leftists believe the U.S. should not be allowed to defend its sovereignty??
No one is saying that. Build a better strawman next time.
Travel ban = "Islamophobia! Xenophobia! Racism! One step away from fascism!"
This topic is peppered with that nonsense. That's what I take issue with here.
It's too bad that Trump originally called for a complete shutdown of Muslim immigration after San Bernardino. It's also too bad that Trump once tweeted, "London has a Muslim problem" and recently retweeted three anti-Muslim videos. Trump clearly has an issue with Muslims in general. Any "travel ban" is tainted by Trump's bigotry. Same with the border wall (which unlike the travel ban, we do need).
Yeah, he called for that 2 years ago. You can call those types of remarks islamophobic, sure. As for the three videos he re-tweeted, only one of those was fake. The other two were authentic video evidence of crimes. I fail to see why those should be censored or forbidden from the public to view. I mean, video evidence is used for convictions... it's not anti-anything. If those videos were ant-Muslim then you're well on the path to saying "well you can't use these videos to prove your case because it's islamophobic". That's where that type of logic leads.
That's insane. And hardly any different than saying you can't have a travel ban because it's islamophobic.
None of this makes the travel ban itself islamophobic or xenophobic or whatever. You say it's "tainted" well what does that mean? In what tangible way? Does the travel ban only target Muslims? No. It's defined by the nations on the list. Case closed.I'll defend any man's Funbazooka!They should be differentiated for the sake of honest argument. Don't act like the inflated mass shooting number is used as a condemnation of white men's propensity to perpetrate mass shootings, when in reality that number is largely minorities.
So the answer is "because I'm racist". Got itAnd Islam as a religion is shown daily, worldwide to be extremely violent and incompatible with western nations. Obviously there are peaceful Muslims. But vetting should be done of them trying to enter the country. If a travel ban is necessary in order to install more thorough processes and let countries on the list revise their systems of accounting for their citizens, then so be it.
How do you "vet" someone? Which thorough processes would you use? I see rightists toss out these terms like candy on Halloween, but have trouble specifying exactly what they mean.If we have a violence issue here, why invite more Violence by not having standards in place?
Because you're assuming someone is going to be violent just because they are Muslim.You can't use a big scary number to argue for a gun ban while ignoring that the majority of that number is made of populations that the gun ban wouldn't affect.
I believe the topic at hand is the travel ban, not gun bans.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...They should be differentiated for the sake of honest argument. Don't act like the inflated mass shooting number is used as a condemnation of white men's propensity to perpetrate mass shootings, when in reality that number is largely minorities.
So the answer is "because I'm racist". Got itAnd Islam as a religion is shown daily, worldwide to be extremely violent and incompatible with western nations. Obviously there are peaceful Muslims. But vetting should be done of them trying to enter the country. If a travel ban is necessary in order to install more thorough processes and let countries on the list revise their systems of accounting for their citizens, then so be it.
How do you "vet" someone? Which thorough processes would you use? I see rightists toss out these terms like candy on Halloween, but have trouble specifying exactly what they mean.If we have a violence issue here, why invite more Violence by not having standards in place?
Because you're assuming someone is going to be violent just because they are Muslim.You can't use a big scary number to argue for a gun ban while ignoring that the majority of that number is made of populations that the gun ban wouldn't affect.
I believe the topic at hand is the travel ban, not gun bans.
Are you pretending to be stupid?
I responded specifically to a post comparing it to domestic gun violence which used the inflated number, which is what i commented on.
And racist? For what exactly? I said you can't use an inflated number as a condemnation of dangerous white men, like the left likes to do, while ignoring that most of that number is from minorities killing people. It is DISHONEST.
And I sure hope you dont lock your doors or check to see who is knocking before you open the door, otherwise you're just another liberal hypocrite.I responded specifically to a post comparing it to domestic gun violence which used the inflated number, which is what i commented on.
No, you're splitting hairs so you can make some irrelevant point and dodge the topic at hand.And racist? For what exactly? I said you can't use an inflated number as a condemnation of dangerous white men, like the left likes to do, while ignoring that most of that number is from minorities killing people. It is DISHONEST.
I'm calling you racist because you're getting ultra defensive here and deflecting to minority violence.And I sure hope you dont lock your doors or check to see who is knocking before you open the door, otherwise you're just another liberal hypocrite.
You ok buddy? You're spouting weird nonsense here. Did I break you?Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...I responded specifically to a post comparing it to domestic gun violence which used the inflated number, which is what i commented on.
No, you're splitting hairs so you can make some irrelevant point and dodge the topic at hand.And racist? For what exactly? I said you can't use an inflated number as a condemnation of dangerous white men, like the left likes to do, while ignoring that most of that number is from minorities killing people. It is DISHONEST.
I'm calling you racist because you're getting ultra defensive here and deflecting to minority violence.And I sure hope you dont lock your doors or check to see who is knocking before you open the door, otherwise you're just another liberal hypocrite.
You ok buddy? You're spouting weird nonsense here. Did I break you?
I'm not deflecting. You asked how the number is a misrepresentation, and i specifically told you that it is used as a big scary number to condemn white violence and push for gun control while ignoring that it is made up of minority gang violence that would not be affected by further gun measures.
It was a point blank answer to your question.
And I'm not splitting hairs. My point was that if that poster was trying to make a point, he should do it without misrepresentation that delegitimizes what may otherwise be a valid point_RETS_ posted...mario2000 posted...
I responded specifically to a post comparing it to domestic gun violence which used the inflated number, which is what i commented on.
No, you're splitting hairs so you can make some irrelevant point and dodge the topic at hand.And racist? For what exactly? I said you can't use an inflated number as a condemnation of dangerous white men, like the left likes to do, while ignoring that most of that number is from minorities killing people. It is DISHONEST.
I'm calling you racist because you're getting ultra defensive here and deflecting to minority violence.And I sure hope you dont lock your doors or check to see who is knocking before you open the door, otherwise you're just another liberal hypocrite.
You ok buddy? You're spouting weird nonsense here. Did I break you?
I'm not deflecting. You asked how the number is a misrepresentation, and i specifically told you that it is used as a big scary number to condemn white violence and push for gun control while ignoring that it is made up of minority gang violence that would not be affected by further gun measures.
It was a point blank answer to your question.
And I'm not splitting hairs. My point was that if that poster was trying to make a point, he should do it without misrepresentation that delegitimizes what may otherwise be a valid point
Why does this matter? Who cares? You're literally yelling at no one.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted..._RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
I responded specifically to a post comparing it to domestic gun violence which used the inflated number, which is what i commented on.
No, you're splitting hairs so you can make some irrelevant point and dodge the topic at hand.And racist? For what exactly? I said you can't use an inflated number as a condemnation of dangerous white men, like the left likes to do, while ignoring that most of that number is from minorities killing people. It is DISHONEST.
I'm calling you racist because you're getting ultra defensive here and deflecting to minority violence.And I sure hope you dont lock your doors or check to see who is knocking before you open the door, otherwise you're just another liberal hypocrite.
You ok buddy? You're spouting weird nonsense here. Did I break you?
I'm not deflecting. You asked how the number is a misrepresentation, and i specifically told you that it is used as a big scary number to condemn white violence and push for gun control while ignoring that it is made up of minority gang violence that would not be affected by further gun measures.
It was a point blank answer to your question.
And I'm not splitting hairs. My point was that if that poster was trying to make a point, he should do it without misrepresentation that delegitimizes what may otherwise be a valid point
Why does this matter? Who cares? You're literally yelling at no one.
Ah, so you're not pretending to be stupid.
You asked a question, I have a thorough answer, and the answer apparently ruined your worldview so now you're whining about it not mattering. I didn't address you to begin with until you asked a question.Ah, so you're not pretending to be stupid.
You asked a question, I have a thorough answer, and the answer apparently ruined your worldview so now you're whining about it not mattering. I didn't address you to begin with until you asked a question.
You still haven't addressed how your answer has anything to do with Muslim immigrants ruining the supposedly perfectly peaceful America with their violence.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Ah, so you're not pretending to be stupid.
You asked a question, I have a thorough answer, and the answer apparently ruined your worldview so now you're whining about it not mattering. I didn't address you to begin with until you asked a question.
You still haven't addressed how your answer has anything to do with Muslim immigrants ruining the supposedly perfectly peaceful America with their violence.
Because it is a notion that no one is suggesting. The only reason you have an issue with vetting people coming into the country is because Trump is the one doing it and you're a liberal sheep ready to swallow whatever the media gives to you.
You not wanting people prior to shovel garbage through your front door doesn't mean you have a perfectly clean house. It means you don't want to add to the existing issues if it can be prevented.
There is nothing wrong with revamping standards for entry from countries that have no meaningful way to vet their citizens, especially when they are countries where the majority religion is responsible for most of the violence on that side of the world.
Again, unless you just keep your front door open and don't care who walks into your house, it's best if you shut the fuck up- Boards
- Current Events
- Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban
- Boards
- Current Events
- Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban
Because it is a notion that no one is suggesting. The only reason you have an issue with vetting people coming into the country is because Trump is the one doing it and you're a liberal sheep ready to swallow whatever the media gives to you.
Nope. I'm against it because it's wrong. Strawman harder.You not wanting people prior to shovel garbage through your front door doesn't mean you have a perfectly clean house. It means you don't want to add to the existing issues if it can be prevented.
So you're outright admitting you believe Muslims are garbage. And you're wondering why I called you a racist.There is nothing wrong with revamping standards for entry from countries that have no meaningful way to vet their citizens, especially when they are countries where the majority religion is responsible for most of the violence on that side of the world.
You still haven't defined how you propose this should be done.Again, unless you just keep your front door open and don't care who walks into your house, it's best if you shut the f*** up
National borders are a bit different from individual persons' front doors. You tried. See me after class.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Because it is a notion that no one is suggesting. The only reason you have an issue with vetting people coming into the country is because Trump is the one doing it and you're a liberal sheep ready to swallow whatever the media gives to you.
Nope. I'm against it because it's wrong. Strawman harder.You not wanting people prior to shovel garbage through your front door doesn't mean you have a perfectly clean house. It means you don't want to add to the existing issues if it can be prevented.
So you're outright admitting you believe Muslims are garbage. And you're wondering why I called you a racist.There is nothing wrong with revamping standards for entry from countries that have no meaningful way to vet their citizens, especially when they are countries where the majority religion is responsible for most of the violence on that side of the world.
You still haven't defined how you propose this should be done.Again, unless you just keep your front door open and don't care who walks into your house, it's best if you shut the f*** up
National borders are a bit different from individual persons' front doors. You tried. See me after class.
I was equating violence and garbage, not Muslims and garbage. I would support a travel ban on any country that is a violent shit hole until we can figure out how to best vet their citizens, white brown or otherwise.
It is not my job to propose how vetting should be done. There are people more equipped to do that, which is why the ban is being upheld.
And whether it's your front door or the country, knowing who is coming in and what their intentions are is a reasonable expectation.
Stop pretending to be stupid you liberal hackI was equating violence and garbage, not Muslims and garbage. I would support a travel ban on any country that is a violent s*** hole until we can figure out how to best vet their citizens, white brown or otherwise.
But you've already equated Muslims with violence, so...It is not my job to propose how vetting should be done. There are people more equipped to do that, which is why the ban is being upheld.
If it was your job, how would you do it?And whether it's your front door or the country, knowing who is coming in and what their intentions are is a reasonable expectation.
Of course. But banning someone solely on the basis of their religion is discriminatory and unconstitutional.Stop pretending to be stupid you liberal hack
I could ask why you keep assuming I'm a liberal, but then again I could let you just keep going and making yourself look biased and silly.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -NekoslashCapn Circus posted...Great news.
The funny thing is that this was going to happen from the start. Trump and his administration knew this, as well as the people who fought it, but the treasonous judges appointed for life by obama knew that their only role was for the liberal-monopolized media to try and spin things to make it look like the government could just smack Trump's hand and tell him how it's gonna be.
NOPE! We win!
Obama ran amok in office for eight years while his "opponents" let him do anything and everything he wanted.
To anybody who got on their high horse when these people fought trump and acted like their decision was final:
In your faceStand for the anthem or sit for the game!8mario2000 posted...I was equating violence and garbage, not Muslims and garbage. I would support a travel ban on any country that is a violent s*** hole until we can figure out how to best vet their citizens, white brown or otherwise.
But you've already equated Muslims with violence, so...It is not my job to propose how vetting should be done. There are people more equipped to do that, which is why the ban is being upheld.
If it was your job, how would you do it?And whether it's your front door or the country, knowing who is coming in and what their intentions are is a reasonable expectation.
Of course. But banning someone solely on the basis of their religion is discriminatory and unconstitutional.Stop pretending to be stupid you liberal hack
I could ask why you keep assuming I'm a liberal, but then again I could let you just keep going and making yourself look biased and silly.
They are not banned on the basis of their religion. The are temporarily banned from certain countries. How about all the other Muslim countries?
I'm not equating Muslims with violence, but vetting distinguishes the violent from the peaceful. This isnt hard to understand. Or would you like to be dishonest more and suggest the middle East isn't exceptionally violent?
I can tell you're a liberal from the incessant virtue signalling.They are not banned on the basis of their religion. The are temporarily banned from certain countries. How about all the other Muslim countries?
You're being disingenuous but whatever, I can still roll with this. How is banning someone on the basis of their country of origin any better?I'm not equating Muslims with violence, but vetting distinguishes the violent from the peaceful. This isnt hard to understand. Or would you like to be dishonest more and suggest the middle East isn't exceptionally violent?
How so? If a violent Muslim wanted to come here and commit violence, they could just lie and say they're not violent.I can tell you're a liberal from the incessant virtue signalling.
Careful with that term. You shouldn't handle things if you don't know what they are.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...They are not banned on the basis of their religion. The are temporarily banned from certain countries. How about all the other Muslim countries?
You're being disingenuous but whatever, I can still roll with this. How is banning someone on the basis of their country of origin any better?I'm not equating Muslims with violence, but vetting distinguishes the violent from the peaceful. This isnt hard to understand. Or would you like to be dishonest more and suggest the middle East isn't exceptionally violent?
How so? If a violent Muslim wanted to come here and commit violence, they could just lie and say they're not violent.I can tell you're a liberal from the incessant virtue signalling.
Careful with that term. You shouldn't handle things if you don't know what they are.
If their country does not have a solid means of monitoring citizens and vetting them via background checks, records, affiliations , etc then it is perfectly reasonable to ban travel from that country until proper systems are in place.
Again, this isn't hard to understand. But you would rather virtue signal and whine about non-existent racism instead of putting in any thought.OpheliaAdenade posted...Mal_Fet posted...
OpheliaAdenade posted...
the travel ban is probably for the best all things considered. :v it just peeves me that Trump intentionally left his business partner's countries off the list despite them being just as risky.
He didn't leave them out. The countries on the ban were all listed by the Obama administration as being especially prone to produce terrorists.
Ain't Trump's fault the countries with his property weren't included in Obama's list
why didn't he revise the list instead of just copying Obama's homework?
Because now shitposters like you can't criticize his choice of where to ban travel :uFreedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
-George Orwell_RETS_ posted...mario2000 posted...
They are not banned on the basis of their religion. The are temporarily banned from certain countries. How about all the other Muslim countries?
You're being disingenuous but whatever, I can still roll with this. How is banning someone on the basis of their country of origin any better?I'm not equating Muslims with violence, but vetting distinguishes the violent from the peaceful. This isnt hard to understand. Or would you like to be dishonest more and suggest the middle East isn't exceptionally violent?
How so? If a violent Muslim wanted to come here and commit violence, they could just lie and say they're not violent.I can tell you're a liberal from the incessant virtue signalling.
Careful with that term. You shouldn't handle things if you don't know what they are.
If their country does not have a solid means of monitoring citizens and vetting them via background checks, records, affiliations , etc then it is perfectly reasonable to ban travel from that country until proper systems are in place.
Again, this isn't hard to understand. But you would rather virtue signal and whine about non-existent racism instead of putting in any thought.
You're not really trying anymore, huh?Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -NekoslashO Imario2000 posted..._RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
They are not banned on the basis of their religion. The are temporarily banned from certain countries. How about all the other Muslim countries?
You're being disingenuous but whatever, I can still roll with this. How is banning someone on the basis of their country of origin any better?I'm not equating Muslims with violence, but vetting distinguishes the violent from the peaceful. This isnt hard to understand. Or would you like to be dishonest more and suggest the middle East isn't exceptionally violent?
How so? If a violent Muslim wanted to come here and commit violence, they could just lie and say they're not violent.I can tell you're a liberal from the incessant virtue signalling.
Careful with that term. You shouldn't handle things if you don't know what they are.
If their country does not have a solid means of monitoring citizens and vetting them via background checks, records, affiliations , etc then it is perfectly reasonable to ban travel from that country until proper systems are in place.
Again, this isn't hard to understand. But you would rather virtue signal and whine about non-existent racism instead of putting in any thought.
You're not really trying anymore, huh?
Lol you suck so bad at arguing. It's child's play to verbally slap you around in debates.Listen to my story... This... May be our last chance...ArchiePeck posted...NINExATExSEVEN posted...
Awwwwww poor libs are mad that dangerous demographics are being kept out.
Just as long as we're going to heavily monitor the movements of white males with mental health problems as well, given their propensity for mass shootings.
Oh this is my favorite counter argument lol 😂Listen to my story... This... May be our last chance...NINExATExSEVEN posted...ArchiePeck posted...
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
Awwwwww poor libs are mad that dangerous demographics are being kept out.
Just as long as we're going to heavily monitor the movements of white males with mental health problems as well, given their propensity for mass shootings.
Oh this is my favorite counter argument lol 😂
"Violence is fine so long as it's committed by a white male"Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...NINExATExSEVEN posted...
ArchiePeck posted...
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
Awwwwww poor libs are mad that dangerous demographics are being kept out.
Just as long as we're going to heavily monitor the movements of white males with mental health problems as well, given their propensity for mass shootings.
Oh this is my favorite counter argument lol 😂
"Violence is fine so long as it's committed by a white male"
Rofl!!
The fact that you can't see why it's dumb to try and blur the lines between white violence and Islamic violence is hilarious.
But i don't expect anything more from progressives.Listen to my story... This... May be our last chance...mario2000 posted...And suddenly silence from the Trumpists. Not surprising, but a little disappointing.
"Please pay attention to me and my ridiculous tangent"
Guess what... mentally ill white people ARE tracked and restricted from the purchase of firearms:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
Islam is a cancerous, destructive ideology that ruins everything it touches. It brings no benefit to anything and belongs in civilized countries as much as Mesoamerican human sacrifices. I'm sorry if you can't handle that, but that's reality. Deal with it."History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltzmario2000 posted...
imagine thinking ffx is anything but flaming garbage
Whoa, hold the fuck up. FFX is incredible.The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sMThe travel ban will always be interpreted as a Muslim ban because Trump literally said to ban Muslims until we know what is going on during his campaign.http://i.imgur.com/ZWNgMXL.jpg
Formerly known as Will VIIIImario2000 posted...Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic
Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?
Again though. Do you see where you went wrong trying to compare white violence to Islamic violence?Listen to my story... This... May be our last chance...NINExATExSEVEN posted...mario2000 posted...
Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic
Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?
Statisically, no.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...s0nicfan posted...
I don't actually know anything about Islam and I just parrot what Breitbart and DailyWire tell me to believe.
I probably know quite a bit more than you do, but I've done this song and dance many, many times. I've heard all the apologetics, listened to all the "well actually if you consider context" arguments, and sat through a thousand "compared to other religions..." diversions. There's really nothing you can say beyond deflecting like this because, as I said, the religion is cancerous and there are 52 Islam dominated countries, ALL of which are borderline third world, to show for it."History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltzmario2000 posted...NINExATExSEVEN posted...
mario2000 posted...
Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic
Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?
Statisically, no.
You mean how statistically minorities are likelier to perpetrate violent crime against whites than the other way around? Or, Again, how the majority of the oft quoted mass shooting stats is minority gang violence?s0nicfan posted...mario2000 posted...
s0nicfan posted...
I don't actually know anything about Islam and I just parrot what Breitbart and DailyWire tell me to believe.
I probably know quite a bit more than you do, but I've done this song and dance many, many times. I've heard all the apologetics, listened to all the "well actually if you consider context" arguments, and sat through a thousand "compared to other religions..." diversions. There's really nothing you can say beyond deflecting like this because, as I said, the religion is cancerous and there are 52 Islam dominated countries, ALL of which are borderline third world, to show for it.
You must be pretty well-traveled to have been to all 52 countries.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash_RETS_ posted...mario2000 posted...
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
mario2000 posted...
Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic
Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?
Statisically, no.
You mean how statistically minorities are likelier to perpetrate violent crime against whites than the other way around? Or, Again, how the majority of the oft quoted mass shooting stats is minority gang violence?
You really like to redirect the conversation to minorities whenever the subject of white-perpetrated violence comes up, don't you?Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted..._RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
mario2000 posted...
Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic
Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?
Statisically, no.
You mean how statistically minorities are likelier to perpetrate violent crime against whites than the other way around? Or, Again, how the majority of the oft quoted mass shooting stats is minority gang violence?
You really like to redirect the conversation to minorities whenever the subject of white-perpetrated violence comes up, don't you?
You brought up the statistics, which are not as in your favor as you think they are. There is no redirection. There is correcting your misdirection._RETS_ posted...mario2000 posted...
_RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
mario2000 posted...
Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic
Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?
Statisically, no.
You mean how statistically minorities are likelier to perpetrate violent crime against whites than the other way around? Or, Again, how the majority of the oft quoted mass shooting stats is minority gang violence?
You really like to redirect the conversation to minorities whenever the subject of white-perpetrated violence comes up, don't you?
You brought up the statistics, which are not as in your favor as you think they are. There is no redirection. There is correcting your misdirection.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted..._RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
_RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
mario2000 posted...
Yes or no: Mentally ill white males with easy access to guns are a dangerous demographic
Don't you mean just mentally ill people in general that have easy access to guns are dangerous?
Statisically, no.
You mean how statistically minorities are likelier to perpetrate violent crime against whites than the other way around? Or, Again, how the majority of the oft quoted mass shooting stats is minority gang violence?
You really like to redirect the conversation to minorities whenever the subject of white-perpetrated violence comes up, don't you?
You brought up the statistics, which are not as in your favor as you think they are. There is no redirection. There is correcting your misdirection.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
Yes, the majority race commits the most of a lot of things in terms of raw numbers. But as a percentage of the population, white males would be under-represented.
So Again, the stats are not as in your favor as you think they are.
Factor in the gang violence that the left loves to include without mentioning what it is, and there is an even greater disparity.Give it up. The facts are against you. This is just sad. You're desperately trying to throw in irrelevant gang violence because the subject of white male-committed violence makes you uncomfortable. And if you're that stuck on percentages, you lose again in that department.
https://www.metro.us/news/majority-mass-shootings-committed-white-menSince 1982, 54 percent of mass shootings (in which three or more fatalities were reported) were committed by white men, according to data from Mother Jones.
Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Give it up. The facts are against you. This is just sad. You're desperately trying to throw in irrelevant gang violence because the subject of white male-committed violence makes you uncomfortable. And if you're that stuck on percentages, you lose again in that department.
https://www.metro.us/news/majority-mass-shootings-committed-white-menSince 1982, 54 percent of mass shootings (in which three or more fatalities were reported) were committed by white men, according to data from Mother Jones.
How are you not understanding? First of all, black men are way likelier to commit violence against other races and their own race.
Second, 54% of mass shootings are committed by the racial MAJORITY, which is far more than 54% of the population. So like I said, per the population, white men would actually be underrepresented in mass shootings. This really isn't that hard.
The majority of mass shootings are committed by the majority number because there are simply more of them. If blacks or hispanics or asians were the majority, they would commit the majority of mass shootings.
However, per the population, again, whites would be underrepresented. Even without factoring in gang violence.
You simply don't have a valid point and aren't smart enough to realize that.mario2000 posted...You're just plugging your ears and going LALALA BUT WHAT ABOUT MINORITIES LALALA. This isn't even funny anymore. It's just sad and pathetic.
No, I'm am breaking down your "white violence" narrative point by point but you are too stupid to counter in any way that makes any sense. You've not countered with a single legitimate point that hasn't been completely dismantled.
You whine about white violence. Your own numbers show you proof that per population there is significant underrepresentation. I used YOUR numbers to show that but you simply aren't intellectually honest enough to do anything but whine about shit you dont have the ability to understand.Uh no, I brought up white violence in regards to mass shootings to counter the ridiculous notion that America is a paradise of peace and immigrants are gonna ruin that with their violence, and then you went off on a tangent about gang violence, which has fuck all to do with anything.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -NekoslashActually I take that back, we have mass shootings AND gang violence!
We don't want those immigrants to bring their violence to our peaceful paradise, now do we?Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Uh no, I brought up white violence in regards to mass shootings to counter the ridiculous notion that America is a paradise of peace and immigrants are gonna ruin that with their violence, and then you went off on a tangent about gang violence, which has fuck all to do with anything.
Straw man.
Literally no one has suggested America is a peaceful paradise. No one is suggesting every immigrant will bring violence. People are suggesting that procedures for vetting need to be reviewed and implemented to determine who may be a threat and who isnt. There is literally nothing wrong with that. Every civilized country monitors immigration.
And if you think it is so violent, why would you not want processes to prevent more Violence from coming in?
Your argument makes no sense and you have been wrong with literally every point you have tried to argue. You simply don't have the mental capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion on the topic, so you should probably shut the fuck up before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Also, you should at least be consistent. If you want to use homeland violence as a reason, why not use black violence, which is statistically overrepresented and likelier to happen? Why use white, which is underrepresented?
Is it because you are a virtue signalling hack and can't think for yourself? I think so.Literally no one has suggested America is a peaceful paradise. No one is suggesting every immigrant will bring violence. People are suggesting that procedures for vetting need to be reviewed and implemented to determine who may be a threat and who isnt. There is literally nothing wrong with that. Every civilized country monitors immigration.
Could've fooled me with how you've been characterizing Muslims as "dangerous" and labeling entire countries as "violent shitholes".And if you think it is so violent, why would you not want processes to prevent more Violence from coming in?
You still have yet to provide even a hint as to what you think these processes should be.Your argument makes no sense and you have been wrong with literally every point you have tried to argue. You simply don't have the mental capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion on the topic, so you should probably shut the f*** up before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
yawnAlso, you should at least be consistent. If you want to use homeland violence as a reason, why not use black violence, which is statistically overrepresented and likelier to happen? Why use white, which is underrepresented?
"How many mass shootings have happened in America in just this year?"
This was my original post. I never mentioned race. Yet you keep going BUH WUH BOUT GANG VIOLENCE because you'd rather talk about violence committed by minorities than violence committed by whites, which wasn't even my intent to begin with.Is it because you are a virtue signalling hack and can't think for yourself? I think so.
I guess "virtue signalling" means "talking about subjects that make you feel uncomfortable"? OK then.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Could've fooled me with how you've been characterizing Muslims as "dangerous" and labeling entire countries as "violent shitholes".
No, that was me calling those countries violent shitholes, and they are. The absolute BEST muslim majority country you can find is not only riddled with human rights violations, but likely only "first world" in a few cities with the countryside being effectively ungoverned.
But go ahead and prove me wrong. Pick out the very best Islam dominated country out of the 52 that it currently dominates. Pick any one, and then let's compare it to Germany, or the UK, or Canada, or Sweden, or France, or any other first world nation built on western ideals. Pick the top 5, I don't care, because I know with 100% confidence that they best you can bring is still a shithole."History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltzmario2000 posted...Literally no one has suggested America is a peaceful paradise. No one is suggesting every immigrant will bring violence. People are suggesting that procedures for vetting need to be reviewed and implemented to determine who may be a threat and who isnt. There is literally nothing wrong with that. Every civilized country monitors immigration.
Could've fooled me with how you've been characterizing Muslims as "dangerous" and labeling entire countries as "violent shitholes".And if you think it is so violent, why would you not want processes to prevent more Violence from coming in?
You still have yet to provide even a hint as to what you think these processes should be.Your argument makes no sense and you have been wrong with literally every point you have tried to argue. You simply don't have the mental capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion on the topic, so you should probably shut the f*** up before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
yawnAlso, you should at least be consistent. If you want to use homeland violence as a reason, why not use black violence, which is statistically overrepresented and likelier to happen? Why use white, which is underrepresented?
"How many mass shootings have happened in America in just this year?"
This was my original post. I never mentioned race. Yet you keep going BUH WUH BOUT GANG VIOLENCE because you'd rather talk about violence committed by minorities than violence committed by whites, which wasn't even my intent to begin with.Is it because you are a virtue signalling hack and can't think for yourself? I think so.
I guess "virtue signalling" means "talking about subjects that make you feel uncomfortable"? OK then.
No one is suggesting all Muslims are violent, but you are fooling yourself to suggest that many ME countries are violent and uncivilized. To suggest otherwise is willful ignorance. And again, it is not my job to determine the processes by which immigrants are vetted, but there has to be something to separate nonviolent Muslims from violent ones similar how there are processes to separate violent gun-seekers from nonviolent ones. Background checks, means of keeping track of citizens' actions and crimes, etc (you know, like every civilized country has when it comes to monitoring immigrants.)
Your original intention of asking about mass shootings was to use a form of violence you thought you could characterize as white violence in order to compare that to muslim violence. If you didn't care about race and only the level of violence, you would have used gang violence, which is far more prevalent and claims far more lives. But you wouldn't dare to do that because you can't paint it as a white issue and you are dishonest and unintelligent. Not only are mass shootings NOT representative of white violence (because again, based on YOUR numbers, whites would be underrepresented) but you ignore the source of far, far more violence because it hurts your narrative.
I have nothing against Muslims. I want more peaceful people of any race, sex, creed, religion, etc in the country and more violent people not in the country or at least not free to roam in public. It is by no means unreasonable to want well-functioning systems in place to distinguish between the two.
And other than you being glaringly wrong, why would anything you're saying make me uncomfortable. Everything you've said proves my point, not yours, but you don't have the mental horsepower to understand that.s0nicfan posted...mario2000 posted...
Could've fooled me with how you've been characterizing Muslims as "dangerous" and labeling entire countries as "violent shitholes".
No, that was me calling those countries violent shitholes, and they are. The absolute BEST muslim majority country you can find is not only riddled with human rights violations, but likely only "first world" in a few cities with the countryside being effectively ungoverned.
But go ahead and prove me wrong. Pick out the very best Islam dominated country out of the 52 that it currently dominates. Pick any one, and then let's compare it to Germany, or the UK, or Canada, or Sweden, or France, or any other first world nation built on western ideals. Pick the top 5, I don't care, because I know with 100% confidence that they best you can bring is still a shithole.
Again, I'd love to hear the tales of your adventures to all 52 of these countries and how you personally experienced how much of shitholes they supposedly are.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...s0nicfan posted...
mario2000 posted...
Could've fooled me with how you've been characterizing Muslims as "dangerous" and labeling entire countries as "violent shitholes".
No, that was me calling those countries violent shitholes, and they are. The absolute BEST muslim majority country you can find is not only riddled with human rights violations, but likely only "first world" in a few cities with the countryside being effectively ungoverned.
But go ahead and prove me wrong. Pick out the very best Islam dominated country out of the 52 that it currently dominates. Pick any one, and then let's compare it to Germany, or the UK, or Canada, or Sweden, or France, or any other first world nation built on western ideals. Pick the top 5, I don't care, because I know with 100% confidence that they best you can bring is still a shithole.
Again, I'd love to hear the tales of your adventures to all 52 of these countries and how you personally experienced how much of shitholes they supposedly are.
Ha, you simply can't do what he's asking and you know it. You're a fucking willfully ignorant clown and I'm done entertaining your stupidity.mario2000 posted...You're just plugging your ears and going LALALA BUT WHAT ABOUT MINORITIES LALALA. This isn't even funny anymore. It's just sad and pathetic.
Rofl you're such a joke. If we equalised the numbers of all minorities to be equal to the number of all whites in America, but the same likelihood of crime committed by each group remained the same, do you think whites would still be leading the mass shootings?
How are you so freaking terrible at debates? You're defeating yourself in this topic smh.Listen to my story... This... May be our last chance...- Boards
- Current Events
- Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban
- Boards
- Current Events
- Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban
No one is suggesting all Muslims are violent, but you are fooling yourself to suggest that many ME countries are violent and uncivilized. To suggest otherwise is willful ignorance. And again, it is not my job to determine the processes by which immigrants are vetted, but there has to be something to separate nonviolent Muslims from violent ones
Until we invent mind-reading, there isn't.similar how there are processes to separate violent gun-seekers from nonviolent ones. Background checks, means of keeping track of citizens' actions and crimes, etc (you know, like every civilized country has when it comes to monitoring immigrants.)
Sure, if someone committed a violent crime and is trying to flee here to escape punishment or something, then yeah, keep them out. But you cannot discriminate based solely on religion or ethnicity. That is unconstitutional.Your original intention of asking about mass shootings was to use a form of violence you thought you could characterize as white violence in order to compare that to muslim violence. If you didn't care about race and only the level of violence, you would have used gang violence, which is far more prevalent and claims far more lives. But you wouldn't dare to do that because you can't paint it as a white issue and you are dishonest and unintelligent. Not only are mass shootings NOT representative of white violence (because again, based on YOUR numbers, whites would be underrepresented) but you ignore the source of far, far more violence because it hurts your narrative.
"why didn't you use this OTHER kind of violence to make your point which has nothing to do with the specific type of violence wahhhh (which happens to be more predominately minority-committed)" yawn you're just a broken record at this pointI have nothing against Muslims. I want more peaceful people of any race, sex, creed, religion, etc in the country and more violent people not in the country or at least not free to roam in public. It is by no means unreasonable to want well-functioning systems in place to distinguish between the two.
You have nothing against Muslims so long as they stay out of the country, right?And other than you being glaringly wrong, why would anything you're saying make me uncomfortable. Everything you've said proves my point, not yours, but you don't have the mental horsepower to understand that.
The fact that you keep trying to shift the topic of discussion from what you perceive as "white violence" (which was merely a throwaway point and not central to the core discussion at hand) to "minority violence" makes it clear that you are uncomfortable talking about the subject of white violence.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...No one is suggesting all Muslims are violent, but you are fooling yourself to suggest that many ME countries are violent and uncivilized. To suggest otherwise is willful ignorance. And again, it is not my job to determine the processes by which immigrants are vetted, but there has to be something to separate nonviolent Muslims from violent ones
Until we invent mind-reading, there isn't.similar how there are processes to separate violent gun-seekers from nonviolent ones. Background checks, means of keeping track of citizens' actions and crimes, etc (you know, like every civilized country has when it comes to monitoring immigrants.)
Sure, if someone committed a violent crime and is trying to flee here to escape punishment or something, then yeah, keep them out. But you cannot discriminate based solely on religion or ethnicity. That is unconstitutional.Your original intention of asking about mass shootings was to use a form of violence you thought you could characterize as white violence in order to compare that to muslim violence. If you didn't care about race and only the level of violence, you would have used gang violence, which is far more prevalent and claims far more lives. But you wouldn't dare to do that because you can't paint it as a white issue and you are dishonest and unintelligent. Not only are mass shootings NOT representative of white violence (because again, based on YOUR numbers, whites would be underrepresented) but you ignore the source of far, far more violence because it hurts your narrative.
"why didn't you use this OTHER kind of violence to make your point which has nothing to do with the specific type of violence wahhhh (which happens to be more predominately minority-committed)" yawn you're just a broken record at this pointI have nothing against Muslims. I want more peaceful people of any race, sex, creed, religion, etc in the country and more violent people not in the country or at least not free to roam in public. It is by no means unreasonable to want well-functioning systems in place to distinguish between the two.
You have nothing against Muslims so long as they stay out of the country, right?And other than you being glaringly wrong, why would anything you're saying make me uncomfortable. Everything you've said proves my point, not yours, but you don't have the mental horsepower to understand that.
The fact that you keep trying to shift the topic of discussion from what you perceive as "white violence" (which was merely a throwaway point and not central to the core discussion at hand) to "minority violence" makes it clear that you are uncomfortable talking about the subject of white violence.
So there should be no gun control measures until there is mind reading right?
And I dont care if Muslims or anyone else comes to the country legally as long as they are peaceful. Couldn't have been any clearer.
And if you need it reiterated, it is not a ban based on religion. Because the countries on the list are a fraction of majority Muslim countries. It is a ban of countries that have been determined (by a previous administration, mind you) to be likelier to produce terrorism due to unchecked citizens.
I am not uncomfortable about white violence. You are using it as a means of comparison, when if level of violence was your argument, you would use an example that reflects a disproportionately high level of violence. But that would be about minorities and your too scared to be honest in that regard.So there should be no gun control measures until there is mind reading right?
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that guns are tools designed with the intent to end lives.And I dont care if Muslims or anyone else comes to the country legally as long as they are peaceful. Couldn't have been any clearer.
Fun fact: The majority of human beings are peaceful by default. Most people DON'T want to cause violence or misfortune.And if you need it reiterated, it is not a ban based on religion. Because the countries on the list are a fraction of majority Muslim countries. It is a ban of countries that have been determined (by a previous administration, mind you) to be likelier to produce terrorism due to unchecked citizens.
So why isn't Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive fundamentalist Islamic regimes, not on the list?I am not uncomfortable about white violence. You are using it as a means of comparison, when if level of violence was your argument, you would use an example that reflects a disproportionately high level of violence. But that would be about minorities and your too scared to be honest in that regard.
I've explained countless times why I happened to use mass shootings as an example back then. I'm not going to again. Keep trying to shove that square peg into the round hole.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...So there should be no gun control measures until there is mind reading right?
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that guns are tools designed with the intent to end lives.And I dont care if Muslims or anyone else comes to the country legally as long as they are peaceful. Couldn't have been any clearer.
Fun fact: The majority of human beings are peaceful by default. Most people DON'T want to cause violence or misfortune.And if you need it reiterated, it is not a ban based on religion. Because the countries on the list are a fraction of majority Muslim countries. It is a ban of countries that have been determined (by a previous administration, mind you) to be likelier to produce terrorism due to unchecked citizens.
So why isn't Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive fundamentalist Islamic regimes, not on the list?I am not uncomfortable about white violence. You are using it as a means of comparison, when if level of violence was your argument, you would use an example that reflects a disproportionately high level of violence. But that would be about minorities and your too scared to be honest in that regard.
I've explained countless times why I happened to use mass shootings as an example back then. I'm not going to again. Keep trying to shove that square peg into the round hole.
Yes, the majority are peaceful. Measures should be in place to identify and bar the violent minority. This isn't difficult to understand but you are really struggling for some reason.
If you want Saudi Arabia on the list (a country who has measures for accounting for their citizens) ask why Obama didn't include them on his list.
And again, you brought up mass shootings to compare violence. But you chose a relatively low-frequency form of violence to make the comparison in an effort to show how violent America is. You did this because you THOUGHT it could easily be painted as white violence (which it cant), whereas if you really wanted to illustrate high rates of violence in the USA you would have used gang violence. But you didn't because then you wouldn't be able to virtue signal about racism.
You are transparent as shit, but that's common with people who are intellectually dishonest and deficient.Yes, the majority are peaceful. Measures should be in place to identify and bar the violent minority. This isn't difficult to understand but you are really struggling for some reason.
Would now be a bad time to reveal to you that we already have measures in place to keep violent or otherwise criminal people out?
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-that-make-us-visa-green-card-applicants-inadmissible.htmlIf you want Saudi Arabia on the list (a country who has measures for accounting for their citizens) ask why Obama didn't include them on his list.
Now you've gone from "broken record" to outright "living in a different reality". Unless Trump has actually been Obama wearing an oompa loompa costume this whole time.And again, you brought up mass shootings to compare violence. But you chose a relatively low-frequency form of violence to make the comparison in an effort to show how violent America is. You did this because you THOUGHT it could easily be painted as white violence (which it cant), whereas if you really wanted to illustrate high rates of violence in the USA you would have used gang violence. But you didn't because then you wouldn't be able to virtue signal about racism.
Nope. That's an assumption you made.You are transparent as s***, but that's common with people who are intellectually dishonest and deficient.
Says the guy who thinks Obama is still president.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Yes, the majority are peaceful. Measures should be in place to identify and bar the violent minority. This isn't difficult to understand but you are really struggling for some reason.
Would now be a bad time to reveal to you that we already have measures in place to keep violent or otherwise criminal people out?
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-that-make-us-visa-green-card-applicants-inadmissible.htmlIf you want Saudi Arabia on the list (a country who has measures for accounting for their citizens) ask why Obama didn't include them on his list.
Now you've gone from "broken record" to outright "living in a different reality". Unless Trump has actually been Obama wearing an oompa loompa costume this whole time.And again, you brought up mass shootings to compare violence. But you chose a relatively low-frequency form of violence to make the comparison in an effort to show how violent America is. You did this because you THOUGHT it could easily be painted as white violence (which it cant), whereas if you really wanted to illustrate high rates of violence in the USA you would have used gang violence. But you didn't because then you wouldn't be able to virtue signal about racism.
Nope. That's an assumption you made.You are transparent as s***, but that's common with people who are intellectually dishonest and deficient.
Says the guy who thinks Obama is still president.
There are measures in place in regards to cooperative countries that have means of monitoring their citizens.... how else would the USA know? We don't monitor the world, it is the responsibility of the home country to account for their citizens so that information for the purposes of vetting can be shared. These countries lack that.
It is a travel ban list the Obama administration came up with.... you can't be serious.There are measures in place in regards to cooperative countries that have means of monitoring their citizens.... how else would the USA know? We don't monitor the world, it is the responsibility of the home country to account for their citizens so that information for the purposes of vetting can be shared. These countries lack that.
How do you know that they lack that? Which countries specifically are lacking? What makes you believe that a country, any country, would not account for its citizens?It is a travel ban list the Obama administration came up with.... you can't be serious.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/
They were identified as "countries of concern", not "countries to ban from travel to the US". Trump is the one pushing the country of concern list through as an actual travel ban list. He has had all the time, power, and authority to add Saudi Arabia to the list, and yet he's giving them a pass. I can only assume that he doesn't want to piss off his oil buddies.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...There are measures in place in regards to cooperative countries that have means of monitoring their citizens.... how else would the USA know? We don't monitor the world, it is the responsibility of the home country to account for their citizens so that information for the purposes of vetting can be shared. These countries lack that.
How do you know that they lack that? Which countries specifically are lacking? What makes you believe that a country, any country, would not account for its citizens?It is a travel ban list the Obama administration came up with.... you can't be serious.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/
They were identified as "countries of concern", not "countries to ban from travel to the US". Trump is the one pushing the country of concern list through as an actual travel ban list. He has had all the time, power, and authority to add Saudi Arabia to the list, and yet he's giving them a pass. I can only assume that he doesn't want to piss off his oil buddies.
Was Obama also not wanting to piss off oil buddies when he didn't add them to the list? Or are you just a partisan hack?
And the reason those particular countries are on the list is specifically because the rampant lawlessness and lack of accountability.
You can keep arguing, but you embarrass yourself more every time you post.
From your own link:
"The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they can’t use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.
The law was soon expanded by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agency’s announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law."
keep losing you clownWas Obama also not wanting to piss off oil buddies when he didn't add them to the list? Or are you just a partisan hack?
"but obawwwwma"And the reason those particular countries are on the list is specifically because the rampant lawlessness and lack of accountability.
So if these places are so awful, why should we not allow people to flee them?You can keep arguing, but you embarrass yourself more every time you post.
Is that your conscience speaking? It's so loud I can hear it from here.From your own link:
"The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they can’t use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.
The law was soon expanded by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agency’s announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law."
keep losing you clown
.....You DO realize that that is not a travel BAN, right? You know, the thing that Trump is trying to do? Our current president? The guy in power right now? Maybe you should actually try reading what you're trying to own me with.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Was Obama also not wanting to piss off oil buddies when he didn't add them to the list? Or are you just a partisan hack?
"but obawwwwma"And the reason those particular countries are on the list is specifically because the rampant lawlessness and lack of accountability.
So if these places are so awful, why should we not allow people to flee them?You can keep arguing, but you embarrass yourself more every time you post.
Is that your conscience speaking? It's so loud I can hear it from here.From your own link:
"The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they can’t use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.
The law was soon expanded by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agency’s announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law."
keep losing you clown
.....You DO realize that that is not a travel BAN, right? You know, the thing that Trump is trying to do? Our current president? The guy in power right now? Maybe you should actually try reading what you're trying to own me with.
It called for restricted travel. The current ban is temporary in order review processes of countries identified (and selected for restricted travel) by the previous administration. Temporary. Temporary. Want me to repeat it again?
People should be allowed to flee them, ONCE PROCESSES ARE IN PLACE TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN AND WHO SHOULDN'T.
Jesus fucking christ, I would say you have a rock for a head but that would be an insult to the entire field of geology.It called for restricted travel. The current ban is temporary in order review processes of countries identified (and selected for restricted travel) by the previous administration. Temporary. Temporary. Want me to repeat it again?
No, it's a knee-jerk reaction to appease Trump's xenophobic fear-mongering voter base. All of the terrorist attacks we have suffered since 9/11 have been committed by American-born citizens. And just because it's temporary doesn't make it any more justified. We already have laws in place to prevent violent criminals from entering our country.People should be allowed to flee them, ONCE PROCESSES ARE IN PLACE TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN AND WHO SHOULDN'T.
"Hey we know you're probably gonna be murdered if you don't leave your country but you gotta wait a few months because you might be a terrorist yourself."Jesus f***ing christ, I would say you have a rock for a head but that would be an insult to the entire field of geology.
It's easy to tell when someone's been backed into a corner when they start throwing out low-grade insults like this. :3cArrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...It called for restricted travel. The current ban is temporary in order review processes of countries identified (and selected for restricted travel) by the previous administration. Temporary. Temporary. Want me to repeat it again?
No, it's a knee-jerk reaction to appease Trump's xenophobic fear-mongering voter base. All of the terrorist attacks we have suffered since 9/11 have been committed by American-born citizens. And just because it's temporary doesn't make it any more justified. We already have laws in place to prevent violent criminals from entering our country.People should be allowed to flee them, ONCE PROCESSES ARE IN PLACE TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN AND WHO SHOULDN'T.
"Hey we know you're probably gonna be murdered if you don't leave your country but you gotta wait a few months because you might be a terrorist yourself."Jesus f***ing christ, I would say you have a rock for a head but that would be an insult to the entire field of geology.
It's easy to tell when someone's been backed into a corner when they start throwing out low-grade insults like this. :3c
Yes, WE have laws to prevent it, but they don't do anything if other countries don't have enough information to share. This also shouldn't be very hard for you to understand, yet it is.
It is also very interesting that you choose to start your tally on September 12, 2001. But again, if we already have our own issues, why would we not want to exhaust measures to ensure we are not actively importing more issues? If only we could work with other countries to establish ways to make sure good people are coming in and bad people are not....
Here's a hint.... universal enforcement of policies increases their efficacy. Everything we do doesn't matter if other countries are not also actively participating in monitoring citizens.
Read that line a million times and try to separate yourself from your partisan hackery. You will come out of that process a little more honest and have at least a semblance of intelligence.Yes, WE have laws to prevent it, but they don't do anything if other countries don't have enough information to share. This also shouldn't be very hard for you to understand, yet it is.
Well if these other countries don't have enough information to share, then a temporary travel ban isn't going to do shit about that, now is it?It is also very interesting that you choose to start your tally on September 12, 2001. But again, if we already have our own issues, why would we not want to exhaust measures to ensure we are not actively importing more issues? If only we could work with other countries to establish ways to make sure good people are coming in and bad people are not....
Tell me how we decide whether or not someone's a terrorist. Do we ask them? Because they're just going to lie about that. Do we go "well they came from this country/are of this religion which has terrorists so that means this person is probably a terrorist"? Because that's discrimination and is unconstitutional.Here's a hint.... universal enforcement of policies increases their efficacy. Everything we do doesn't matter if other countries are not also actively participating in monitoring citizens.
Well obviously. We are already doing our job by having our laws in place to prevent criminals from entering our country. That is the most we can possibly do without infringing on human rights laws or breaking our own constitution.partisan hackery
Translation: "I'm getting owned hard and gonna start throwing out random buzzwords in hopes that I stop getting owned."Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Yes, WE have laws to prevent it, but they don't do anything if other countries don't have enough information to share. This also shouldn't be very hard for you to understand, yet it is.
Well if these other countries don't have enough information to share, then a temporary travel ban isn't going to do shit about that, now is it?It is also very interesting that you choose to start your tally on September 12, 2001. But again, if we already have our own issues, why would we not want to exhaust measures to ensure we are not actively importing more issues? If only we could work with other countries to establish ways to make sure good people are coming in and bad people are not....
Tell me how we decide whether or not someone's a terrorist. Do we ask them? Because they're just going to lie about that. Do we go "well they came from this country/are of this religion which has terrorists so that means this person is probably a terrorist"? Because that's discrimination and is unconstitutional.Here's a hint.... universal enforcement of policies increases their efficacy. Everything we do doesn't matter if other countries are not also actively participating in monitoring citizens.
Well obviously. We are already doing our job by having our laws in place to prevent criminals from entering our country. That is the most we can possibly do without infringing on human rights laws or breaking our own constitution.partisan hackery
Translation: "I'm getting owned hard and gonna start throwing out random buzzwords in hopes that I stop getting owned."
Literally no one reading this would interpret our interactions any other way than you getting completely dismantled every time you post, by myself and anyone else who has responded to you.
A temporary travel ban helps because it allows time (during which no one, good or BAD is permitted to enter) to review other countries means of cooperating with us to ensure safety of our citizens, safety of their citizens, and insurance against violence being transferred from one country to another.
And President's reserve the right to restrict travel from places. Not everyone in those countries is Muslim and not every Muslim country is on the list. So there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
And for the 4th time, you determine someone's likelihood of committing violence by background checks, reviews of affiliations, etc. Things that the countries on the list DO NOT DO in any meaningful way, so until they can it is prudent to restrict travel.
How old are you? If you are at least in your 20s you are far too old to be so god damn dumb.mario2000 posted...Also please stop using the word "import" when talking about refugees or immigrants. You import cargo. Using it in reference to people is dehumanizing.
I'll use whatever word I want and won't be policed by a virtue signaling SJW projecting their own racist inference onto an innocuous word usage._RETS_ posted...mario2000 posted...
Also please stop using the word "import" when talking about refugees or immigrants. You import cargo. Using it in reference to people is dehumanizing.
I'll use whatever word I want and won't be policed by a virtue signaling SJW projecting their own racist inference onto an innocuous word usage.
Exactly. To import something is the opposite of deporting, so it makes sense to me.Stand for the anthem or sit for the game!Literally no one reading this would interpret our interactions any other way than you getting completely dismantled every time you post, by myself and anyone else who has responded to you.
Keep deluding yourself. It's the only way you can survive.A temporary travel ban helps because it allows time (during which no one, good or BAD is permitted to enter) to review other countries means of cooperating with us to ensure safety of our citizens, safety of their citizens, and insurance against violence being transferred from one country to another.
We have not suffered any major terror attacks from foreign perpetrators in nearly the last two decades. That is also plenty of time to work with other countries in getting them to cooperate with us. This travel ban accomplishes nothing and is just Trump throwing a bone to his worshipers.And President's reserve the right to restrict travel from places. Not everyone in those countries is Muslim and not every Muslim country is on the list. So there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
There must be a rational basis for imposing a ban, usually a country from which there is a clear and imminent threat. None of these countries have made imminent threats towards us.And for the 4th time, you determine someone's likelihood of committing violence by background checks, reviews of affiliations, etc. Things that the countries on the list DO NOT DO in any meaningful way, so until they can it is prudent to restrict travel.
Seems like they actually do get background checks: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html
I'd say the current process is working pretty well, since again, you know, we haven't suffered any major foreign-perpretrated terrorist attacks in nearly 20 years.
But you would know that if you took the 2 seconds it takes to Google this stuff.How old are you? If you are at least in your 20s you are far too old to be so god damn dumb.
Old enough to have more class than to resort to childish insults like you have been this whole time you've been losing this argument.I'll use whatever word I want and won't be policed by a virtue signaling SJW projecting their own racist inference onto an innocuous word usage.
Not surprising, given you've already demonstrated your lack of empathy quite well so far.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashsouthcoast09 posted..._RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
Also please stop using the word "import" when talking about refugees or immigrants. You import cargo. Using it in reference to people is dehumanizing.
I'll use whatever word I want and won't be policed by a virtue signaling SJW projecting their own racist inference onto an innocuous word usage.
Exactly. To import something is the opposite of deporting, so it makes sense to me.
Uh, no, the opposite of importing is exporting.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...southcoast09 posted...
_RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
Also please stop using the word "import" when talking about refugees or immigrants. You import cargo. Using it in reference to people is dehumanizing.
I'll use whatever word I want and won't be policed by a virtue signaling SJW projecting their own racist inference onto an innocuous word usage.
Exactly. To import something is the opposite of deporting, so it makes sense to me.
Uh, no, the opposite of importing is exporting.
If you're talking about goods or cargo. With people, it's "import" or "deport."Stand for the anthem or sit for the game!southcoast09 posted...mario2000 posted...
southcoast09 posted...
_RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
Also please stop using the word "import" when talking about refugees or immigrants. You import cargo. Using it in reference to people is dehumanizing.
I'll use whatever word I want and won't be policed by a virtue signaling SJW projecting their own racist inference onto an innocuous word usage.
Exactly. To import something is the opposite of deporting, so it makes sense to me.
Uh, no, the opposite of importing is exporting.
If you're talking about goods or cargo. With people, it's "import" or "deport."
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS753US753&ei=nGAoWtS0NcaGjwPC2IfgDA&q=opposite+of+deport&oq=opposite+of+deportantonyms:admit
yikerinos, how embarrassed you must feel right nowArrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashhey, let's pull up the full list why don't we?
https://www.powerthesaurus.org/deport/antonyms
go ahead and ctrl+f "import"
also side note, googling "import refugees" brings up sites like Breitbart and DailyWire
hmmmmmmmmm~Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -NekoslashWe get it: you're sensitive about rhetoric. The fact remains that the people voted for this and now we've got it. The treasonous judges were overruled and it's been proven that the "we are going to stop trump from doing everything" thing was just a front.
Another day, another win.Stand for the anthem or sit for the game!southcoast09 posted...Embarrassed about... what, now? You've abandoned every out you've been given and people are watching your meltdown as a source of entertainment.
I dunno, you're the one flailing your arms trying to argue the sky is purple here.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...hey, let's pull up the full list why don't we?
https://www.powerthesaurus.org/deport/antonyms
go ahead and ctrl+f "import"
also side note, googling "import refugees" brings up sites like Breitbart and DailyWire
hmmmmmmmmm~
You being pedantic about word usage is the result of you having no legitimate arguments in any other regard ITT.
And I wasn't referring to importing people, I was referring to importing issues (specifically violence) which is more abstract and not synonymous with importing refugees, which you I suppose unwittingly equated with violence.Nah, I've presented all my legitimate arguments. You just refuse to accept them.I was referring to importing issues (specifically violence) which is more abstract and not synonymous with importing refugees
boring backpedal, especially when you've previously equated Muslims with violencewhich you I suppose unwittingly equated with violence.
boring projection
you're a boring personArrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...Nah, I've presented all my legitimate arguments. You just refuse to accept them.
I have dismantled, point by point, every argument you have presented. At no point in this entire thread have you had anything resembling a legitimate point that hasn't been easily countered (using your own links and stats, no less) other than your pedantry over "import" which wasn't even used how you said it was, so you failed at that too.
You are simply too stupid to know what you don't know and too blinded by partisan ignorance to care.mario2000 posted...Nah, I've presented all my legitimate arguments. You just refuse to accept them.
I was referring to importing issues (specifically violence) which is more abstract and not synonymous with importing refugees
boring backpedal, especially when you've previously equated Muslims with violencewhich you I suppose unwittingly equated with violence.
boring projection
you're a boring person
I have not once equated Muslims with violence. I said there needs to be processes of distinction between Muslims (or anyone else) with ill-will and those without. I agreed the majority are peaceful and the minority is the issue (and the reason for the necessity of review) and said twice that I would prefer peaceful people come and violent people not.
But you've got Don Lemon's nut sack covering your eyes apparently and missed all that._RETS_ posted...mario2000 posted...
Nah, I've presented all my legitimate arguments. You just refuse to accept them.
I have dismantled, point by point, every argument you have presented. At no point in this entire thread have you had anything resembling a legitimate point that hasn't been easily countered (using your own links and stats, no less) other than your pedantry over "import" which wasn't even used how you said it was, so you failed at that too.
You are simply too stupid to know what you don't know and too blinded by partisan ignorance to care.
So this is the point where you melt down and start screeching "NO I WON!!!!" and start hurling your silly little insults and meaningless labels.
Predictable.
Yawn.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted..._RETS_ posted...
mario2000 posted...
Nah, I've presented all my legitimate arguments. You just refuse to accept them.
I have dismantled, point by point, every argument you have presented. At no point in this entire thread have you had anything resembling a legitimate point that hasn't been easily countered (using your own links and stats, no less) other than your pedantry over "import" which wasn't even used how you said it was, so you failed at that too.
You are simply too stupid to know what you don't know and too blinded by partisan ignorance to care.
So this is the point where you melt down and start screeching "NO I WON!!!!" and start hurling your silly little insults and meaningless labels.
Predictable.
Yawn.
I haven't melted down. I've provided you with clear and accurate counter points to your moronic bullshit. I will continue to insult you amidst all that because people like you deserve to be insulted.I have not once equated Muslims with violence.
Except for the part where you literally did, and your constant dogwhistling, your word choice and tone, the fact that you got super jimmy-rustled when you perceived me to be talking about white violence instead of minority violence. It's pretty easy to see where your beliefs lie.I said there needs to be processes of distinction between Muslims (or anyone else) with ill-will and those without. I agreed the majority are peaceful and the minority is the issue (and the reason for the necessity of review) and said twice that I would prefer peaceful people come and violent people not.
We have not suffered a major terrorist...actually forget it.But you've got Don Lemon's nut sack covering your eyes apparently and missed all that.
okArrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -NekoslashNINExATExSEVEN posted...I legit laughed out loud at Mario in this topic 😂
He's literally defeating himself with his own statistics.
Speaking of partisan hackery...Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...I have not once equated Muslims with violence.
Except for the part where you literally did, and your constant dogwhistling, your word choice and tone, the fact that you got super jimmy-rustled when you perceived me to be talking about white violence instead of minority violence. It's pretty easy to see where your beliefs lie.I said there needs to be processes of distinction between Muslims (or anyone else) with ill-will and those without. I agreed the majority are peaceful and the minority is the issue (and the reason for the necessity of review) and said twice that I would prefer peaceful people come and violent people not.
We have not suffered a major terrorist...actually forget it.But you've got Don Lemon's nut sack covering your eyes apparently and missed all that.
ok
All of that is inference on your part. My belief lies with the facts. Fact, blacks are likelier to perpetrate violent crime. Fact, whites are actually underrepresented in mass shootings (per your own stats), with or without gang violence factored in. So WHY would you use mass shootings to make your point of high levels of violence? You did it to bitch about white males.
And saying the ME is full of shit hole countries is not dog whistling anything. It is a fact. There is more violence in that region than anywhere in the world and there is no excuse for it. Or are you denying the extremely common occurrence of attacks that claim hundreds of lives?
Again though, your own words defeat your point. If you want to start your tally on September 12, 2001 (which you do in order to stay consistent with your dishonesty), then we have not had any major terrorist attacks from immigrants, which is great. So WHY THE FUCK would we want to increase our chances of that number going from negligible to significant by bringing in people unchecked from countries considered high risk that have no meaningful method of ensuring that won't happen?
What you are wanting increases the likelihood of a foreign attack on our soil. So what is the solution? Making sure those who come in are not likely to perpetrate that. How is that accomplished? Through cooperation with countries that can monitor and account for their citizens.
See? Wasn't that easy? My girlfriend works with special needs kids, so I changed up my approach and went step by step like she does so maybe you can start to understand.mario2000 posted...NINExATExSEVEN posted...
I legit laughed out loud at Mario in this topic 😂
He's literally defeating himself with his own statistics.
Speaking of partisan hackery...
I'm not Republican or Democrat. I'm center left.
Soooo?Listen to my story... This... May be our last chance...All of that is inference on your part. My belief lies with the facts. Fact, blacks are likelier to perpetrate violent crime. Fact, whites are actually underrepresented in mass shootings (per your own stats), with or without gang violence factored in. So WHY would you use mass shootings to make your point of high levels of violence? You did it to b**** about white males.
Nope. We've been over this numerous times. Wipe the sleepies from your eyes, dig those racist beliefs out of your brain, and go back and read the conversation again.And saying the ME is full of s*** hole countries is not dog whistling anything. It is a fact. There is more violence in that region than anywhere in the world and there is no excuse for it. Or are you denying the extremely common occurrence of attacks that claim hundreds of lives?
Then define the term "shithole country" and outline the criteria one needs to meet in order to receive the definition.Again though, your own words defeat your point. If you want to start your tally on September 12, 2001 (which you do in order to stay consistent with your dishonesty)
okthen we have not had any major terrorist attacks from immigrants, which is great. So WHY THE f*** would we want to increase our chances of that number going from negligible to significant by bringing in people unchecked from countries considered high risk that have no meaningful method of ensuring that won't happen?
So why hasn't that number increased now? Or 5 years ago? Or any time during the last few decades? Could it be....that our current processes are doing the job just fine?What you are wanting increases the likelihood of a foreign attack on our soil. So what is the solution? Making sure those who come in are not likely to perpetrate that. How is that accomplished? Through cooperation with countries that can monitor and account for their citizens.
Which..is...what...we are already doing. And have been doing without a pointless travel ban, which would hurt more innocent people than it would help.See? Wasn't that easy? My girlfriend works with special needs kids, so I changed up my approach and went step by step like she does so maybe you can start to understand.
Yes, you seem to be quite familiar with this approach. Your girlfriend mentors you very well.Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslashmario2000 posted...All of that is inference on your part. My belief lies with the facts. Fact, blacks are likelier to perpetrate violent crime. Fact, whites are actually underrepresented in mass shootings (per your own stats), with or without gang violence factored in. So WHY would you use mass shootings to make your point of high levels of violence? You did it to b**** about white males.
Nope. We've been over this numerous times. Wipe the sleepies from your eyes, dig those racist beliefs out of your brain, and go back and read the conversation again.And saying the ME is full of s*** hole countries is not dog whistling anything. It is a fact. There is more violence in that region than anywhere in the world and there is no excuse for it. Or are you denying the extremely common occurrence of attacks that claim hundreds of lives?
Then define the term "shithole country" and outline the criteria one needs to meet in order to receive the definition.Again though, your own words defeat your point. If you want to start your tally on September 12, 2001 (which you do in order to stay consistent with your dishonesty)
okthen we have not had any major terrorist attacks from immigrants, which is great. So WHY THE f*** would we want to increase our chances of that number going from negligible to significant by bringing in people unchecked from countries considered high risk that have no meaningful method of ensuring that won't happen?
So why hasn't that number increased now? Or 5 years ago? Or any time during the last few decades? Could it be....that our current processes are doing the job just fine?What you are wanting increases the likelihood of a foreign attack on our soil. So what is the solution? Making sure those who come in are not likely to perpetrate that. How is that accomplished? Through cooperation with countries that can monitor and account for their citizens.
Which..is...what...we are already doing. And have been doing without a pointless travel ban, which would hurt more innocent people than it would help.See? Wasn't that easy? My girlfriend works with special needs kids, so I changed up my approach and went step by step like she does so maybe you can start to understand.
Yes, you seem to be quite familiar with this approach. Your girlfriend mentors you very well.
Please, explain where there is racism. Please. Is it racist of me to give you facts? Is anything you don't like or that doesn't fit your narrative racist?
I would say a third world country where gays are regularly executed, women have no rights, rape victims are executed for being rape victims, no one has any meaningful quality of life, and people regularly get blown up by the hundreds qualifies as a shit hole. If you disagree, then I expect a picture of your boarding pass for your flight to any of the countries on the list.
To your "point" of why the number hasn't increased, you may walk across the street 10 times without looking and not get hit by a car, that doesn't mean you shouldn't review your approach. The current process may very well be working "fine" but if steps can be taken to optimize it they should be.Please, explain where there is racism. Please. Is it racist of me to give you facts? Is anything you don't like or that doesn't fit your narrative racist?
Then link me to the peer-reviewed study that proves black people are more predisposed to commit crime.I would say a third world country where gays are regularly executed, women have no rights, rape victims are executed for being rape victims, no one has any meaningful quality of life, and people regularly get blown up by the hundreds qualifies as a s*** hole. If you disagree, then I expect a picture of your boarding pass for your flight to any of the countries on the list.
And you're perfectly fine with forcing people to stay in those terrible countries because..why, again?To your "point" of why the number hasn't increased, you may walk across the street 10 times without looking and not get hit by a car, that doesn't mean you shouldn't review your approach. The current process may very well be working "fine" but if steps can be taken to optimize it they should be.
I don't know how much more optimized you can get than "zero terrorist attacks".Arrrr the SS Goku, Mighty fine boat... -fatmatt
Hope Frieza doesn't chuck an Iceberg at the Goku, otherwise it's all over. -Nekoslash- Boards
- Current Events
- Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban
No comments:
Post a Comment