*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

Yeah you have a valid point, we should deport the likes of Jimmy Savile, too. Anyone know a country that wants our baby rapers?

The establishment are worse than the Muzz. Let's talk about percentages. I'm not going to do any googling, I'll just pull a league table of baby rapers out of my arse...
1. British Royalty, politicians, and celebrities
2. Middle Eastern & African immigrants of a religious nature (aka Muzz)
3. Aston Villa fans
4. Working class white British people
5. East Asian immigrants

I'd quite happily set fire to anyone who willingly covered up for Savile.

Anyway, I appreciate my trolling is cutting close to the bone here, so let's point out that you're missing a rather large point. Actually two. You're assuming I'm saying ban all Muzz because there's a higher percentage of baby rapers amongst them than in normal society. I'm not. I'm saying don't let them in because they have utter contempt for our way of life and have absolutely no intention of integrating. I'm pointing at things like Rotherham, Sweden, Germany and all the other places infested with dreadful crime as a consequence of "cultural enrichment" as examples of what happens to societies when immigration gets out of hand. What happens is we get the worst of the third worlders, the ones who abandon their families and nations, and crime goes through the roof. The evidence is abundant, but anyone who dares point to it is accused of racism. No wonder they feel invinisble.

The other point you're missing is you can't deport British people to somewhere other than Britain. Sadly, gone are the days where we can dump our convicts on random islands. What you can do though is refuse to allow in a group of people who hold western values in contempt. What's the problem there?

Dear Pakistan,

I am a white English citizen who wishes to move to Islamabad. Unfortunately I am unable to speak whatever language you speak. Urdu? It's a guess, and I don't even care if I'm right. I have no desire to learn another language. I have no qualifications, and no desire to work. I would like to live a comfortable life on your benefits system, while living in a white-only community, where I feel safe from the threat of racism from your terrible citizens. I want access to a Christian church, and any locals who discriminate against us should be treated with severity. I also expect your police force to use adequate resources to carefully monitor social media for hate crimes against people like me.

I reserve the right to explode myself in a busy market to punish your sinner citizens for their wicked ways.

I look forward to being granted immediate citizenship, with full voting rights.

Sincerely,
Ong.

ps, I'm still bound by UK law, not Pakistani law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What's the problem there?

---

That you're conflating desperate people exhibiting criminal discontent for the cultural norms with immigrants coming from a different culture refusing to adopt your own. You can't even pretend you don't have ethnic centers of culture in the UK. Those centers have adopted the minimal UK culture to coexist, while keeping as much of their "outside" culture as they can. This belies that it's not a matter of adopting culture at all. It's a matter of desperate people doing desperate things.

The notion that child rape is a consequence of desperation is ridiculous. Pedophilia is a brain disorder. Rape is a violent crime. It's certainly possible that someone was driven from their home town because they were a confirmed child rapist, but that can't be any kind of norm for any human society.

EDIT: I don't know of any case of pedophilia which was a transient period in a person's life. They're either a sick fuck who is attracted to children or they're not. Feel free to lay me some evidence of a "reformed" pedo. What could possibly count as proof that someone doesn't fantasize about being a pedo even if they suppress those urges from becoming criminal actions? Maybe not too scientific of me to discount evidence before it's been shown, but this is psychology. Dafuq can be proved in psychology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

...

---

To say you're veering off topic is an insult to the average object veering off. How does any of that relate to the child separation policy? All of the things you say could be true. I don't challenge them because they're irrelevant. Why do mexicans crossing the border - legally or illegally - because this is happening pre-trial, have their children abducted. And I'm not using emotive language. They take their children 0-17 years of age, in many cases don't have records which child was taken from which adult, and have no plans on reuniting them. How can you possibly defend this?
So far nothing you said relates to this policy directly or could be in any way used to justify it. If I'm overlooking something, feel free to point it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

How does any of that relate to the child separation policy?

---

I believe his defense was that separating children from their parents was an effective deterrent to being a non-white-non-US-citizen on US soil.

He then developed the defense that this was acceptable policy with the idea that people from a different culture/religion/whatever who emigrate are usually depraved criminals looking for fresh victims to satisfy their lust for babies. Also, something something about last night in Sweden, and no-go zones in Berlin where immigrants stab and rape any white person they come across.

Ong, maybe if you left your village in the Midlands once in a while and saw the world with your own eyes you might not have such a two-dimensionally retarded view of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Yeah you have a valid point, we should deport the likes of Jimmy Savile, too. Anyone know a country that wants our baby rapers?

---

How about jailing him?

Quote:

---

And I'm not using emotive language

---

You sure 'bout that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Why do mexicans crossing the border - legally or illegally - because this is happening pre-trial, have their children abducted.

---

^WTF?

Dude....why so much demagogue??? "Abducted"? You really wanna use that word? You REALLY think it's appropriate?

If so, then either A) You're hopelessly misinformed about vocabulary, or B) you lack the cognitive abilities to engage in a logical, fact-based, discussion on border policy. Which is it?

Your rhetoric clearly suggests that child-separation was a policy created purposefully for the purpose of enforcing the border. You seem to think it's done as punishment, or outright cruelty towards illegal immigrants. Like "Ha ha ha, we caught you crossing our border, now suffer the ultimate price and say good bye to your kids!!"

Criminals don't get to take their kids to jail with them.

that's NEVER been the case for any crime, ever. If you get caught stealing, or selling drugs, or vandalizing property...you go to jail. And your kids don't get to come with you. You either find someone to take them for you, or the state puts them in foster-care. That's how it's always worked, for every criminal ever. Immigrant and citizens alike.

Illegal border crossers had TWENTY FUCKING DAYS to call Uncle Jose and ask him to drive up to Juarez and pick up little Miguel. That's almost three friggen weeks to make arrangements for their kids. Turn on an episode of COPS sometime and watch them arrest people. Tell me how many times the criminal was allowed to say "Hey, I know you wanna take me to jail, but can we stall this for three weeks? I've got a kid"

Stop calling it a "child separation policy". That's bullshit demagoguery.

America has had decades now of Democratic leadership that refused to enforce the border. Trump got elected because he promised to enforce the border. Enforcing the border means that illegal immigrants aren't allowed to cross, and they get punished for trying.

Do you have a BETTER idea Oskar? I'm seriously asking. What policy would you suggest that effectively enforces the border? How would you keep the criminals and economic immigrants (as Ong described) out of the country? How would you disincentivize a crossing attempt?

Do you really think that border patrol should round people up and then say "Ok, everyone with kids is free to go. Better luck next time"

Do you see how INSANE that would be? Do you not see how you would be making a perverse and cruel incentive for people to take kids on this dangerous trek across the friggen desert?

Maybe you could say that border enforcement could have been a little "tighter" administratively. Maybe they could have kept better records for reunification purposes. Oh well, they didn't. And when it became a problem, Trump took action and fixed it. If you think that took too long, you're probably right. Congress should have fixed it immediately. Except the Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer decided to shrug and say "nah, not our problem".

After that, Trump issued an Executive Order and now families aren't separated anymore. You really can't ask for more than that. No one has bitched about family separations for almost two months now Oskar. yet here you are still ranting about "abductions".

have we talked about what demagoguery means???

I'm waiting now to hear YOUR incredibly effective and entirely humane border enforcement policy. What is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The nice thing is that open borders is not a problem,

---

Aaahh, I see you've discovered hallucinogenic mushrooms. This should be fun...

Quote:

---

and does not induce or invite terrorism.

---

What if the terrorists are trying to get it in without inducement or invitation? Do us all a favor and research how many attempted entries by known or suspected terrorists that the DHS has stopped.

It's a fucking lot.

Quote:

---

Most terrorism in America is perpetuated by Americans

---

Wrong. Objectively, and provably wrong. Why did you say this? What are you even talking about?

Quote:

---

school shootings

---

Not terrorism

Quote:

---

Waco wackos

---

not terrorism

Quote:

---

, unabomber,

---

Barely terrorism

Quote:

---

etc.

---

Etc?? Is this supposed to imply that there is a massive litany of similar terrorist incidents? I find that highly suspect since two of your three examples are more than two decades old.

Quote:

---

The irrational fear that immigrants have a negative effect on Americans' lives is what it is.

---

It's not irrational. The depressed wages that result from immigrant labor, as well as the cost of education and medicaid for their anchor-babies is REAL. That's a completely RATIONAL assessment of a real, tangible negative effect on American's lives.

Quote:

---

We had open borders with Canada and Mexico for - like, forever, man - and no downward spiral of terrorism.

---

Drastic mischaracterization. You couldn't just waltz into Canada. You still had to go through customs/border security. You still had to be searched. You still had to provide justification for being there. You could still be turned away. And it was still very very much illegal to scramble through the woods to get around the check-point.

BTW, how did the 9/11 hijackers get into the US?

Quote:

---

I hear a lot of people pissing and moaning about immigrants, but not one of the people I've spoken to about it has any reason to think that they have been denied any rights or priveleges because some immigrant bamboozled the system.

---

Dude, what show are you watching? There are almost 12 million illegal immigrants in America, maybe more. Millions of them have citizen children now. So illegal immigration is responsible for something like 5-8% of our total population. They represent an even larger portion of our poor population. There is no possible way that is a net benefit for our economy. Just no chance. The math doesn't work.

You don't need a foil hat to see that the Democrat party is encouraging immigration and the growth of the low-class because that's where they can get votes. It has nothing to do with human compassion, it's all about political power. That's why they want to give illegal immigrants the right to vote. It's starting small, but make no mistake about the larger agenda.

I find it hard to believe that "none of the people you've spoken to" care about depressed wages or skyrocketing welfare costs.

Quote:

---

Yes, illegal immigrants are criminals, but so is every person that speeds on a public road

---

Are speeders sentenced with commensurate punishment? Or do cops just see kids in the car and say "Oh, I can't take your license, you have to get these kids to McDonalds!" You're making a false equivalency here Monkey that is actually pretty sad. Please tell me you're smarter than this.

Quote:

---

Not all criminals are doing harm, is all I'm saying

---

FALSE. Statutes are created to declare certain behavior criminal BECAUSE IT CAUSES HARM!! Again...depressed wages; skyrocketing welfare costs. Do you know what "harm" means?

Quote:

---

I'm not arguing to be soft on crime.

---

Yeah you are.

Quote:

---

The other nice thing is that this notion that people should be treated as less-than-equal people because they are not citizens is purely hateful and MOST people in the world are not full of hate like that. The vocal minority of haters ain't going to get much accomplished

---

Wrong again. How do you get through life when you're so incapable of thinking rationally?

First of all, who is being treated like "less than equal"? What crime of inequality is being perpetrated by enforcing a border? You might have a point if white immigrants were just being ushered in while brown people were locked in holding cells and shipped back to Guadalajara.

That's not what's happening. No one is being denied due process. Everyone has 20 days to make arrangements for their kids.

Where is the inequality?

It's not hateful to confer certain rights and privileges on your own citizens. Otherwise, why have a country?

Wait, you mean to say when these illegals get picked up, they have 20 days to make arrangements for their children to be returned home? Why don't I read this in the MSM?

This is why I don't immediately jump on the omfg bandwagon whenever Trump is accused of doing something that people don't like. I know the MSM are spoonfeeding me selected information while ignoring relevant information. Anything that shifts the blame back on to the people who are responsible for these children, that's not fitting the agenda.

And my point remains... there is MUCH worse shit going on around the world, but the people who sit on top of that massive hill of morality seem to be obsessed with only one person... a democratically elected leader.

Let me know when Clinton turns up in a ditch. After the party, I'll probably start to be concerned about the implications of it all.

On the cost argument: An estimated 3000 children have been separated from their parents at their border. Trumps retarded trade war necessitated a 12 billion dollar bailout for american farmers. If he didn't start a completely unnecessary and unjustified trade war with your allies, you could have bought every one of those children and their families 4 Bughatti Veyrons. The monetary cost is negligible.

The 20 day timeline is something that used to happen. The reason of course is that you can't detain people indefinitely without a fair trial based on human rights conventions. This is something that was ignored. The reunification was then court ordered after a massive public outcry, but they weren't able to meet it because they didn't even document which child belonged to which guardian, or they lost track of children completely.

When you go to jail, you have a reasonable expectations that the valuables you had on you when you got in will be returned to you when you get out. To have your child permanently taken from you for a misdemeanor charge (not even a conviction) can't possibly be defensible.
And no, when you are detained for a misdemeanor, they don't give your child up for adoption for you to never see it again. This is an absolutely retarded analogy.

Super easy question: if a canadian hikes over the US border with a child and they have no passports on them, should the border patrol apprehend them, give the child up for adoption and send the adult back to canada with no information on where his child is and no plans to ever reunite them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Ong, maybe if you left your village in the Midlands once in a while and saw the world with your own eyes you might not have such a two-dimensionally retarded view of things.

---

I don't agree with the tone, but I do agree with the sentiment.
Ethnocentrism is strong, here. It's almost exclusively due to people being afraid of other people.
Other people whom they've never met.
Other people whom they've never met whom are somehow less trustworthy than the criminals in their own families.

It's lazy hating based on thinly veiled fear.

Put your big kid pants on and stop living in fear, you scaredy cats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Super easy question: if a canadian hikes over the US border with a child and they have no passports on them, should the border patrol apprehend them, give the child up for adoption and send the adult back to canada with no information on where his child is and no plans to ever reunite them?

---

nice strawman.

super easy amswer though. If the guy committed a crime, he should be charged, tried, and sentenced under the law. simple.

as for his kid, it should be the same as when any other criminal is apprehended with a kid (it happens hundreds of times a day you know)

in this case, ship the kid back to canada, and make it canadas problem. If there are reunification troubles after that....blame Canada

Fuck canada

So why should this be handled differently when it concerns canadians rather than mexicans?

Its not

https://twitter.com/i/status/1022468634390589440

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Its not

---

Yeah, it is... and should be according to your suggestion. The children are not being sent back to mexico, they are either held in detainment camps indefinitely or given up for adoption even if they crossed the border accompanied by a guardian or parent.

Every time I leave my village, I remember how much of a shithole the world is, and retreat back to the countryside where I can smoke spliffs and drink tea in blissful peace.

You guys seem to forget that I've been living in a shitty large town for the best part of two decades, and the UK's second city is my home city. I've only been hiding in the countryside for six months. So don't assume that I've lived under a rock for my entire life.

And who's living in fear? I'm not. Perhaps I would be if I lived in London, but fortunately I live in a place where the only things I need to fear are cancer from my increased spliff smoking and the headaches from my increased tea drinking.

Btw, banana, in just a couple of posts you have misused the words demagogue and strawman, and you are shaky on the difference between is and should. I strongly question how fruitful this argument can possibly be.
I have suggested this to wuf and spoon already: I am completely fine with arguing against the notion that brown people are inferior, which seems to be your unspoken axiom. It would truthfully be a more challenging discussion than this nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And who's living in fear? I'm not. Perhaps I would be if I lived in London, but fortunately I live in a place where the only things I need to fear are cancer from my increased spliff smoking and the headaches from my increased tea drinking.

---

You're right, every time I've been to London I had to constantly look over my shoulder for the muslim invasion to steal my culture. scary stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And who's living in fear? I'm not.

---

You recently argued that immigrants are baby-rapists, clearly and plainly expressing a fear of babies being raped by immigrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Btw, banana, in just a couple of posts you have misused the words demagogue and strawman, and you are shaky on the difference between is and should. I strongly question how fruitful this argument can possibly be.
I have suggested this to wuf and spoon already: I am completely fine with arguing against the notion that brown people are inferior, which seems to be your unspoken axiom. It would truthfully be a more challenging discussion than this nonsense.

---

+10 points for getting the word "strawman" into this paragraph.

Quote:

---

You're right, every time I've been to London I had to constantly look over my shoulder for the muslim invasion to steal my culture. scary stuff

---

Haha said by someone who's been to Hyde Park but not Finsbury Park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

You recently argued that immigrants are baby-rapists, clearly and plainly expressing a fear of babies being raped by immigrants.

---

Fear and disgust are not the same thing. I'm not afraid of baby rapers, because I'm not a baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Yeah, it is... and should be according to your suggestion. The children are not being sent back to mexico, they are either held in detainment camps indefinitely or given up for adoption even if they crossed the border accompanied by a guardian or parent.

---

I've never heard of a Canadian getting picked up for a misdemeanor offense in the U.S. and having their kids taken from them. Pretty sure that would make the news if it did happen.

On a related note, I was coming back to Canada on a flight from the U.S. one time pre-9/11. I show my ticket and Canadian passport to the guy, and he says "Where are you heading?" I say "Calgary." He says "Do you have a green card?" It took me a second to process the sheer stupidity of the question, but finally I said "I'm a Canadian going to Canada. Why would I need a green card? We don't even have green cards in Canada." And he looks confused for a second, then lets me go.

Another time post 9/11 I was driving across the border from NY state to Ontario. I get to the little ten feet of no mans land at the border and the *U.S.* customs guy stops me and starts asking me questions about how long I'm going for, where I'm going, etc.. I'm thinking "Buddy I'm leaving your fucking country. Your job is to ask people questions when they enter, not when they leave. What, are you going to tell me I can't leave if you don't like my answers? Fuck off."

Stuff like this makes me think border security is a job done by people who failed out of mall cop academy. No wonder they can't keep track of whose babies they've arrested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Haha said by someone who's been to Hyde Park but not Finsbury Park.

---

There's lots of places in the U.K. I wouldn't go to given a choice, including the pub down the street. Plenty of them are occupied by white people (including the pub down the street).

Perhaps we should stop letting white idiots into the country.

It's the natives who don't like anyone with a funny tan and a funny accent that make me uncomfortable.

Maybe it's the idea that they're willing to pre-judge me as a baby rapist that does it, dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Perhaps we should stop letting white idiots into the country.

---

If only the Americas had that option 500 years ago.

A bit dated now but still apt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKEsyIuTrO8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It's the natives who don't like anyone with a funny tan and a funny accent that make me uncomfortable.

Maybe it's the idea that they're willing to pre-judge me as a baby rapist that does it, dunno.

---

How do you know they're willing to pre-judge you as a baby rapist? Did you go in there and get called a baby rapist? Or are you just making this shit up because there's often fights at the pub and therefore you assume they are all knuckle dragging racists who hate all foreigners except the Turkish guy who runs the kebab shop.

Also, you did what oskar did. Turn this into an issue about skin colour when my problem is with Allahphiles. +5points for you, you don't get as many points because you didn't say strawman while being a strawman.

Quote:

---

If only the Americas had that option 500 years ago.

---

Yeah, if only. We'd probably be speaking German.

Don't tell an American I said that.

I was trying to draw a connection that I repeatedly asked you to clarify. You justified the child separation policy citing your "disgust" of uk-pakistani child rapists, and I fail to see why all mexicans should be treated badly because some uk-pakistani men committed a crime 11 years ago.
Am I really being presumptuous in saying that this has something to do with skin color? Feel free to clarify what your thought process was in connecting the two.

Quote:

---

You justified the child separation policy citing your "disgust" (whatever) of uk-pakistani child rapists

---

No, I said "literally raping babies" in direct sarcastic reply to you saying "literally abducting babies", but you all took it seriously. Since then I've been trolling the shit out of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How do you know they're willing to pre-judge you as a baby rapist? Did you go in there and get called a baby rapist? Or are you just making this shit up because there's often fights at the pub and therefore you assume they are all knuckle dragging racists who hate all foreigners except the Turkish guy who runs the kebab shop.

---

Obviously that was a joke, duh.

There's knuckle-dragging racists in every country. Here, when you see the England flag flying over a pub and only white people inside, it's a good guess you've found a nest of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Also, you did what oskar did. Turn this into an issue about skin colour when my problem is with Allahphiles. +5points for you, you don't get as many points because you didn't say strawman while being a strawman.

---

Where did I call YOU a racist? I was talking about people who are also prejudiced. If you think hating a religious group is somehow less odious than hating a race, well it's not. It's just a different way of being ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I've been trolling the shit out of you.

---

So you're only trolling, you don't actually believe what you're saying? I ask because it's not the first time you've expressed these attitudes.

Wow I really got played there. Good job, buddy!

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...38/025/db0.jpg

Quote:

---

There's knuckle-dragging racists in every country. Here, when you see the England flag flying over a pub and only white people inside, it's a good guess you've found a nest of them.

---

*except during international football tournaments that involve England.

Quote:

---

Where did I call YOU a racist? I was talking about people who are also prejudiced. If you think hating a religious group is somehow less odious than hating a race, well it's not. It's just a different way of being ignorant.

---

Well I hope you haven't been saying anything about them Scientologists that could be deemed offensive. I hope you have the utmost respect for their batshit ideas.

You're wrong. It is not odious to hate a religion. Devil worship is a religion. So is voodoo. You're an idiot if you think these people are immune from critisism on the grounds of "ignorance".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So you're only trolling, you don't actually believe what you're saying? I ask because it's not the first time you've expressed these attitudes.

---

It's the exact same thing spoon does, it's the same wuf does. Some credit to banana because he hasn't used that as far as I recall. It's so fucking dumb and transparent. Either it's such an elaborate trolling effort that for thousands of posts you keep your story together, but only once you say something really retarded, that's when you jump out from under the bush and yell gotcha!

How incredibly sad and pathetic would that be if that was actually true. There are no winners there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

*except during international football tournaments that involve England.

---

Really? Where do people of colour go to watch football? Not one of those pubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well I hope you haven't been saying anything about them Scientologists that could be deemed offensive. I hope you have the utmost respect for their batshit ideas.

You're wrong. It is not odious to hate a religion.

---

It is odious to hate everyone who belongs to that religion though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So you're only trolling, you don't actually believe what you're saying? I ask because it's not the first time you've expressed these attitudes.

---

Ok, to be clear... I think immigrants should integrate into their host nation. I've been clear what integration means to me... speak the language, work, be law abiding. How is that too much to ask of an immigrant? How is it racist to tell those who refuse to do this to kindly fuck off?

I'm trolling because I don't really give anywhere near as much of a fuck as I appear to here. I just know it's pressing buttons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

It's the exact same thing spoon does, it's the same wuf does. Some credit to banana because he hasn't used that as far as I recall. It's so fucking dumb and transparent. Either it's such an elaborate trolling effort that for thousands of posts you keep your story together, but only once you say something really retarded, that's when you jump out from under the bush and yell gotcha!

How incredibly sad and pathetic would that be if that was actually true. There are no winners there.

---

Only they know for sure, but my guess is they believe most of what they're saying. And when a number of people call them out on it, they pull out the troll defense so they look less bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Don't tell an American I said that.

---

Lol.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...rk_vt0fJsY5nDw

*sigh* My people... ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Really? Where do people of colour go to watch football? Not one of those pubs.

---

Huh? You said this...

"There's knuckle-dragging racists in every country. Here, when you see the England flag flying over a pub and only white people inside, it's a good guess you've found a nest of them. "

This is pretty much every pub in the country during the World Cup. Are you suggesting that every white person in the country is a racist knuckle dragger?

Quote:

---

It is odious to hate everyone who belongs to that religion though.

---

It's odious to hate someone because they did a vote you don't agree with.

Anyway, I never said I hate every single Muslim. I said I hate their religion and if they want to be full batshit, they can stay away from my country.

But even so... is it odious to hate all devil worshippers purely because of their religious beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Wow I really got played there. Good job, buddy!

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...38/025/db0.jpg

---

Talking of what spoon does... this is his favourite image after someone dares to claim they were baiting him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Huh? You said this...

"There's knuckle-dragging racists in every country. Here, when you see the England flag flying over a pub and only white people inside, it's a good guess you've found a nest of them. "

This is pretty much every pub in the country during the World Cup. Are you suggesting that every white person in the country is a racist knuckle dragger?

---

I was referring to the pubs that fly the flag whether there's a football game on or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

But even so... is it odious to hate all devil worshippers purely because of their religious beliefs?

---

Picking nits a bit here, but it's a thought crime,yeah. If they use relgion as a reason to do evil shit, then hate them for doing evil shit. Not because they believe some dumb stuff.

Also, out of 1 billions muslims in the world the % raping babies and chopping off heads is very tiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Ok, to be clear... I think immigrants should integrate into their host nation. I've been clear what integration means to me... speak the language, work, be law abiding. How is that too much to ask of an immigrant? How is it racist to tell those who refuse to do this to kindly fuck off?

---

How do you know which people are going to integrate and which aren't before they come in though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Btw, banana, in just a couple of posts you have misused the words demagogue and strawman, .

---

That's something a demagogue strawman-er would say.

Quote:

---

and you are shaky on the difference between is and should.

---

Nope. Let's just say that your tales of baby Auschwitz's in El Paso are drastically overstated.

Quote:

---

I strongly question how fruitful this argument can possibly be.

---

As do I. I mean, I've only asked the question about 19 friggen times now. I asked you to present a reasonable border policy that doesn't separate parents from children. In response, you propped up some silly strawman about a Canadian hiker. I'll ask a 20th time now. This is your chance Oskar. Tell us how to enforce the border while keeping families together. What's your brilliant policy for that?

Quote:

---

the notion that brown people are inferior, which seems to be your unspoken axiom.

---

If you ever entertain thoughts of saying this to my face, then I would highly recommend you first take a careful inventory of your teeth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

How do you know which people are going to integrate and which aren't before they come in though?

---

idk, you could start by looking at people of a similar background who are already here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Also, out of 1 billions muslims in the world the % raping babies and chopping off heads is very tiny.

---

FALSE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I asked you to present a reasonable border policy that doesn't separate parents from children. In response, you propped up some silly strawman about a Canadian hiker. I'll ask a 20th time now. This is your chance Oskar. Tell us how to enforce the border while keeping families together. What's your brilliant policy for that?

---

You can do it the same way every other civilized country does it, or even how the US handles it at the canadian border, or before the Trump administration, or after a federal court ordered the family reunification. How is this a question you couldn't have answered yourself?

Quote:

---

If you ever entertain thoughts of saying this to my face, then I would highly recommend you first take a careful inventory of your teeth.

---

brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you ever entertain thoughts of saying this to my face, then I would highly recommend you first take a careful inventory of your teeth.

---

Care to explain how this is not a direct threat of bodily harm?
I've been convinced by other mods to leave you alone for the most part.

Give me one more of these and you're gone for good from FTR.
I hope you know I'm not bluffing, here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Care to explain how this is not a direct threat of bodily harm?
I've been convinced by other mods to leave you alone for the most part.

Give me one more of these and you're gone for good from FTR.
I hope you know I'm not bluffing, here.

---

I don't think you know what "threat" means. It was simply a suggestion.

Furthermore, the dude straight-up called me a racist. Without cause, evidence, or provocation.

I 100% meant what I said, and I'm not sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

You can do it the same way every other civilized country does it

---

With walls?

Quote:

---

or even how the US handles it at the canadian border

---

Uhh, border enforcement policy is border enforcement policy. Period. The rules don't change on the Canadian border. The only difference is, Canada isn't a corrupt shithole full of opium smugglers, violent criminals, and uneducated masses. So maybe things just *seem* better up there.

Quote:

---

or before the Trump administration,

---

Sorry, I asked you to suggest an effective border enforcement policy. Suggesting that anything pre-Trump was "effective" is complete idiocy.

Quote:

---

or after a federal court ordered the family reunification.

---

Once again, you've failed to suggest something "effective"

You seem to be missing the key factor here. None of the pre-Trump border enforcement policies qualify as "effective". In fact, they were SO ineffective, that Trump got elected by promising a fucking wall. Do you get that? Does that register to you? People thought there should be tougher consequences and stiffer penalties and zero tolerance for illegal immigration. That issue was put up for a vote. And open borders LOST.

So you sound awfully wishy-washy when you're challenged to suggest and effective border policy, and the best you can come up with was "just do what we've always done!".

The voters spoke, and they decided that was inadequate. Continuing to push it as a solution is just dumb.

So here are the paramaters Oskar, and I'm still waiting to here what you think would solve the issue of family separation.

1) Illegal border crossers will be charged with a crime and given a commensurate punishment
2) Kids can't go to jail with their parents.

So Miguel steps over the border and gets nabbed. He's being charged with a crime. But he's got a kid with him. You just gonna give him a pass?

See this is where you falter Oskar. Because in the Canadian hiker example, you were fine with my suggestion of shipping the little brat back to Canada and making it Trudeau's problem. Yet, in that instance, a family was separated.

So what's really your problem here? Is it about separations? Or is it about what happens to the kids afterward? Cause those are two WAAAAY different discussions.

Another question. Serious question. Your mom is driving around drunk with your little nephew. She loses focus and runs over a pheasant that was crossing the road and then crashes into an antique lamppost destroying a priceless historical artifact. The police come. They give her a sobriety test and she fails. the police have probable cause to charge her with mayhem and arrest her.

Should they let her go because she has a kid with her?
Should they arrest the kid too, and put him in a holding cell with your mom?
Would there be any plausible circumstance where that woman and that child would be anywhere near each other just 30 minutes after this episode?

Assuming that the answer to all of the above is "no", then please explain why an arrest for the crime of invading a sovereign nation would be handled any differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Assuming that the answer to all of the above is "no", then please explain why an arrest for the crime of invading a sovereign nation would be handled any differently.

---

Immigrants are invaders. Not racist btw.

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/s...703661568?s=19

scary stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Immigrants are invaders. Not racist btw.

---

Illegal immigrants are indeed invaders. Why is that word racist?

I can only take one dyslexic at a time. Use a dictionary.

It's clear Oskar has no argument to that banana. He's read the entire post, then replied "pfft invaders" and said "racist" again.

Using language like "abduction" and "racist" is absolutely fine. Powerful words are great when it describes an opponent of left wing views. But say words like "invader" and "criminal" and you're being disingenuous.

Trying to make nevr-Trumpers realise that Trump is not a nasty dictator is a futile exercise. It doesn't matter that his political opponents are on CNN rather than turning up in ditches. It doesn't matter that he can get voted out in two years if the American public don't want him anymore. It doesn't matter that he's actually defused a lot of the global tension that existed before he took office. The dude is literally fucking Hitler.

Might as well just leave people like Oskar to their deluded morality crusade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I can only take one dyslexic at a time. Use a dictionary.

---

Immigrants aren't a race, dickhead.

They aren't an army either.

In fact I'm going to agree with you on something... I think the word "invaders" is probably not a reasonable word to describe Mexican immigrants. Mexicans are economic migrants. I'd use the word "invader" to describe Muslim immigrants, ie those who have no intention of integrating and have a long-term goal of dominance.

But still. Stop being a hypocrite. Why is it ok for you to abuse words like "abduction" and "racist" but banana can't abuse the word "invader"? If you want to use powerful words disingenuously, allow other to as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's clear Oskar has no argument to that banana. He's read the entire post, then replied "pfft invaders" and said "racist" again.

---

Is there any specific question from that wall of autism you want me to answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Is there any specific question from that wall of autism you want me to answer?

---

Yes. Why is it ok for you to abuse words but not your opponents?

Let's get an FTR slang dictionary going so we don't keep bickering about words...

"abduct" - to lawfully separate a child from its parent
"racist" - a person concerned about immigration
"invader" - illegal immigrant
"Hitler" - a disliked democratically elected leader

Never called Trump Hitler. I called him a fucking retard, which he is, in point of fact.
The separation might have been lawful. The laws in place that allow it were supposed to be applied when there was a perceived threat to the child. Starting with Trump's policy, they applied that to every single child that crossed the border. Even if it's not illegal it's a misuse of power. What was ruled to be unlawful was the indefinite detention of children who crossed the border with a guardian. The reunification was court ordered. If the federal courts didn't step in, thousands of children would still be separated.
So it was an unlawful separation of children from their parents without the parents consent. We can call it that, but abduction is a lot shorter.

Quote:

---

What was ruled to be unlawful was the indefinite detention of children who crossed the border with a guardian.

---

What do you mean by "indefinite detention"? If I were responsible for a border, and a child crossed said border, I can either "indefinitely detain" the child, or I can just let him keep walking. Or maybe I can stop him, ask his name, and then send him on his way.

The options when faced with a unaccomponied child are...
indefinitely detain - that is, detain the child until a suitable alternative has been found,
send them back - dump them the other side of the border and it's Mexico's problem again,
process them and don't detain them - leave a child to fend for himself in USA

When children turn up at borders alone, they need to be cared for. That is detention, and it's indefinite because they are alone, a child, and it would be grossly irresponsible if the receiving state did NOT dteain them.

For fuck's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Is there any specific question from that wall of autism you want me to answer?

---

Yeah, why is a family separation at the border different than your nephew being separated from your mom when she drives drunk and kills pheasants.

I read last week that there are still a number of kids who have not been reunited.

that's nuts.

It's 2018. The age of facebook. How can you not find a person?

All that says to me is that these kids weren't really crossing with their families in the first place. See the problem now?

If you let people off the hook when they have kids with them.....then the bad guys will start marching over the border with kids.

Are you really so naive and shortsighted to believe that the coyotes, smugglers, cartels, and criminals haven't figured that out over the last fucking decade?

the fact that some kids got stranded kinda proves that these werent' all law abiding, peace-loving families. There was some serious child exploitation going on.

And yet, people like oskar pull their hair out and scream idiotic nonsense like "Oh these kids would be at home, with their families, playing monopoly, and going to school, except TRUMP FUCKED THAT UP!!!"

Deranged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Never called Trump Hitler. I called him a fucking retard, which he is, in point of fact.

---

I see we're splitting hairs about words and definitions today. And we're being precise, and factual right?

So what's Trump's IQ?

Quote:

---

The separation might have been lawful.

---

No, we're being precise today oskar. The separations ARE lawful.

Quote:

---

The laws in place that allow it were supposed to be applied when there was a perceived threat to the child.

---

Mom and dad are going to jail. Is that a threat to the child?

Quote:

---

Starting with Trump's policy, they applied that to every single child that crossed the border.

---

No, just the ones that came over illegally

Quote:

---

Even if it's not illegal it's a misuse of power.

---

No, it absolutely isn't. Learn fucking democracy dude. Seriously, this is getting old. The mandate from the electorate was to enact a zero-tolerance border policy. Abiding my a democratic mandate is probably the furthest thing from an abuse of power.

you know what's an abuse of power.....when one single, solitary, left leaning, politically biased activist judge upends the entire democratic process and says "you can't do that anymore.....cuz racism"

Quote:

---

What was ruled to be unlawful was the indefinite detention of children who crossed the border with a guardian. The reunification was court ordered.

---

Misuse of power

Quote:

---

If the federal courts didn't step in, thousands of children would still be separatedcriminals would still be in jail

---

Fixed your post

Quote:

---

So it was an unlawful separation of children from their parents without the parents consent.

---

What the living fuck Oskar. Seriously. What the holy hell here? Unlawful?? But didn't you just say......

Quote:

---

The separation might have been lawful.

---

Quote:

---

...it's not illegal...

---

Quote:

---

....laws in place that allow it...

---

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahaha
haha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ahhahaha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Cmon dude....get smarter. You can't just go flip flopping your opinions, changing the definition of words, and ignoring democracy just so you can adapt to whatever anti-Trump idea Vox spoon-feeds you. Have some conviction. Act like a god damn man!

Quote:

---

The options when faced with a unaccomponied child are...

---

irrelevant because that's not the issue. They take accompanied children from their guardians and then treat them exactly as they would if they were unaccompanied. That is the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Yeah, why is a family separation at the border different than your nephew being separated from your mom when she drives drunk and kills pheasants.

---

Try to answer that for yourself. How is it different? I can't believe you can't answer that. I know you're retarded but you're not that fucking retarded.

Oh and do you disagree with the federal judge's ruling that the families need to be reunited or do you believe they should have been permanently separated?

And I'm still waiting for an actual answer to the perpetually open question. How would you enforce the border and not separate families?

Giving a free pass to people travelling with kids is not an acceptable answer.

I'll simplify the question because at this point it's clear that the concept is over your head. Here's the new question.

When someone is arrested for a crime....any crime....anywhere....and they have a kid with them, how would you enforce the law without separating the kid from the criminal being arrested?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

irrelevant because that's not the issue. They take accompanied children from their guardians and then treat them exactly as they would if they were unaccompanied. That is the issue.

---

What's wrong with that? These "guardians" are criminals charged with a crime. Once that happens, they can no longer accompany the children. So those kids become unaccompanied. And then they're treated accordingly.

Sounds like the system is working.

Quote:

---

Try to answer that for yourself. How is it different? I can't believe you can't answer that. I know you're retarded but you're not that fucking retarded.

---

OMG You called me a name!! Monkey!! Where are you?? Save me?? use your mod powers on this oppressor!!

Seriously though, I can't answer it for myself. All I know is that when you get arrested, you can't take your kids to jail with you. They get separated from you. Why is border crossing different?

I can't believe you can't answer that!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Oh and do you disagree with the federal judge's ruling that the families need to be reunited or do you believe they should have been permanently separated?

---

you say "permanantly separated" like it's something enforceable. Or that it was originally done as some kind of punishment measure.

I dont' agree with the judges ruling because the underlying presumption is that this is somehow the judge's business. So fuck that judge.

Do you disagree with the democratic mandate that says enforce teh fucking border??

it's funny, when one activist judge agrees with you, that person is somehow an indisputable authority. Yet when 65 million voters say "no more illegal immirgrants please", suddenly they're all idiots and what they say doesn't matter.

And "permanently separated" is a red herring that you're using because you're a transparent demagogue. I find it hard to believe that someone who has been charged, tried, sentenced, punished, and then deported can't just pick up a phone and get their kid back. CNN wants you to believe we're holding these kids captive as part of some kind of sadistic exercise. If you want your kid back, wait until you're a free person again, and call the fucking embassy.

Jesus Oskar, you make it sound like these kids have been absorbed into the gulag archipelago never to be seen again.

Oh yeah, I remember. You also thought the ruling against racial gerrymandering in NC was done by the "activist" supreme court. We don't need to go any further. I agree with the court decision on this. You disagree. Take it up with the courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Oh yeah, I remember. You also thought the ruling against racial gerrymandering in NC was done by the "activist" supreme court. We don't need to go any further. I agree with the court decision on this. You disagree. Take it up with the courts.

---

LOL, so what you're saying is....

You just hate the border policy because Trump is the one enforcing it. And you actually have no better idea with any sensible legal basis.

it's just strawman and demogogue to the extreme on this huh? You aren't going to ACTUALLY engage on any points of fact, or answer any of the sensible and direct questions you've been asked...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Oh yeah, I remember. You also thought the ruling against racial gerrymandering in NC was done by the "activist" supreme court. We don't need to go any further. I agree with the court decision on this. You disagree. Take it up with the courts.

---

First of all, judicial activism is a thing. Ignoring it is stupid.

Second, there is a MASSIVE difference between a 9 member panel of the most accomplished judges on earth making a ruling, and one singular ass-hole in a robe banging gavels in a circuit court.

I don't have to agree with the Supreme court's decision, but I respect it. (by the way, several of those most accomplished judges on earth agreed with me)

When a single person thinks they can upend the democratic process by suddenly declaring long-standing laws unconstitutional...I neither agree, nor respect that action.

how do you not see the difference?

And why are you deflecting rather than just engage head-on on the actual issue here

I told you exactly what the better idea was. And you had a sensible idea when I asked you how you'd enforce it at the canadian border. You can answer it for yourself easily: imagine the immigrants are white, and you'll know what I think the reasonable policy is.

Quote:

---

First of all, judicial activism is a thing. Ignoring it is stupid.

---

Interesting how judicial activism is so biased towards brown people. Really makes you think, huh?

It's a fair point. What does America do with all those white Candaians who are bringing their kids to the border and trying to sneak over?

Quote:

---

Interesting how judicial activism is so biased towards brown people. Really makes you think, huh?

---

Oskar, I'm not sure if you've noticed yet, but it's you and poop who seem obsessed with the colour of people's skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I told you exactly what the better idea was.

---

What? Where? just tell me the post #

So far the suggestions I've seen you endorse are:
1) Don't punish illegal border crossers if they have kids with them (the old policy). this fails because it doesn't satisfy the voters' mandate to enforce the border. The old policy didn't work.
2) You seemed to be ok with shipping the canadian kid back to Trudeau. but that requires the kid to be separated from his family. So I'm not following your logic here? Is family separation only an outrage when it happens to brown people?

Quote:

---

And you had a sensible idea when I asked you how you'd enforce it at the canadian border.

---

My "sensible idea" was to separate the family, throw the hiker in jail, and not give a fuck if they ever see each other again. Are we on the same page? You think that's "sensible"? It requires a family separation. Why is that suddenly ok when we're talking about white people?

Quote:

---

You can answer it for yourself easily: imagine the immigrants are white, and you'll know what I think the reasonable policy is.

---

I'm sure it's very easy to have balls and call someone a racist from behind a keyboard. But honestly, this is a pathetic and transparent debate tactic. Nothing I've said has anything to do with race, and nothing I've advocated would be applied differently at the 'white' border. So if you're calling me a racist, then it's obviously because you can't contend with the facts, refuse to recognize the election results, and will delude yourself into believing ANYTHING if it means complications for Trump's agenda.

It's the last resort of the ineffective demagogue. You can't engage on the actual issue, so you try to label your opponent as some kind deplorable character, so you can take everything he says, put in in a box, shelf it, and remove it from the dialogue.

Be better

Quote:

---

Interesting how judicial activism is so biased towards brown people Against anything Trump does. Really makes you think, huh?

---

Fixed your post.

MY KINGDOM FOR A WORTHY DEBATE OPPONENT!

PLEASE!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I don't think you know what "threat" means. It was simply a suggestion.

---

We're not 7, here.
Everyone knows exactly what your suggestion meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Furthermore, the dude straight-up called me a racist. Without cause, evidence, or provocation.

---

Yeah. Then you decided to escalate that into a flame war.

If you want to take the position that he's acting like a child, then you can't zoom to a more childish response like as though that's not hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I 100% meant what I said, and I'm not sorry.

---

That's none of my concern. You're free to think anything you like.
What you're not free to do is to post things on FTR which are against FTR's rules.

You're voluntarily engaging in a conversation with people whom don't respect you.
(and so are they; it's reciprocal)
If any of you choosing to do this can't manage it in civility, then you are not invited to participate on this forum.

MMM, serious question

Why are you here?

You've openly admitted you have no particular interest in the subject matter being discussed. You haven't contributed anything useful to any conversation in forever.

Was it really your calling to be hall monitor?

Go away

For clarification, making threats of violence, however they are intended to be interpreted, it against FTR rules and it's not a flexible one like calling someone an idiot or a dickhead. There's no mod dispute on this one. I'll just be more polite about it... please don't make threats, or there might actually be some action. Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Oskar, I'm not sure if you've noticed yet, but it's you and poop who seem obsessed with the colour of people's skin.

---

Because you gave me no other way to interpret what you said. You equated pakistani with mexicans (calling both baby rapists). Went on to defend this retarded statement for about 5 more posts until resorting to the classic trolled-u defense.
I almost don't want to bring it up because I'm not going back a hundred posts but I'm pretty sure banana has argued in favor of a white ethnostate. Spoon definitely has. Sometimes it's hard to keep track of your dyslexic racists.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rce=reddit.com

Are democrats mexicans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

For clarification, making threats of violence, however they are intended to be interpreted, it against FTR rules and it's not a flexible one like calling someone an idiot or a dickhead. There's no mod dispute on this one. I'll just be more polite about it... please don't make threats, or there might actually be some action. Cheers.

---

Again, I didn't threaten violence.

I simply stated that if one is to go around calling people racists in physical proximity to them, then it would be prudent to be prepared for likely consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I'm pretty sure banana has argued in favor of a white ethnostate.

---

HOW THE LIVING HELL DO YOU GET AWAY WITH SAYING THIS??

HOW IN THE FUCKING WORLD DO YOU NOT HAVE SOME KIND OF FILTER IN YOUR BRAIN THAT SAYS "WARNING: YOU'RE ABOUT TO MAKE A MONUMENTALLY INCENDIARY ACCUSATION. ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE IT'S TRUE??

WHO FUCKING RAISED YOU MAN?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Maybe it was just spoon.

---

Fuck you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Again, I didn't threaten violence.

I simply stated that if one is to go around calling people racists in physical proximity to them, then it would be prudent to be prepared for likely consequences.

---

Let's not get into semantics on this. You must be able to see why it's unacceptable. You implied that if you were to meet, if oskar were to call you a racist to your face, you would rearrange his teeth. I realise this is normal big boy talk, but it's also easy to interpet such comments as threats of violence. It was a threat by implication, and you know it was. I'm not discussing this any more, I don't want to argue about it. I just want to point out that I agree with mojo that's it's unacceptable, and worthy of mod intervention.

I'm sorry what I said was interpreted as a threat of physical violence. I'm sure no one really took it as that but I appreciate why a website can't condone threats of physical violence, no matter how weak and pathetic, as standard.

Feel free to copy and paste this into any of your near future posts BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

I'm sorry.....

---

nope

There's no rule that says you have to say sorry, and if there's one thing worse than not saying sorry about something it's saying you're sorry when you're not. He broke a rule, got told, end of story.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck if he's sorry or not. banana and oskar are never going to meet, I doubt very much that oskar feels intimidated by such comments, and I doubt very much that banana intended to intimidate oskar. It's just the line has to be drawn somewhere, there has to be a point where mods are in agreement as to what we can and can't let slide.

FWIW, BananaStand is an ethnocentrist, not a racist, IMO.

I don't think the assessment that he's racist holds up to any of his assertions, and I can understand why he's upset at the accusation.

From what I can tell, if someone doesn't want to adopt his culture, that's the line he's drawn. If it happens to correspond to skin color, then that's a coincidence. He doesn't want Mexicans crossing the border. Mexican is not a race; Mexicans are all races. The majority of them are brown, but plenty are white or black, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

From what I can tell, if someone doesn't want to adopt his culture, that's the line he's drawn

---

I don't know how you're concluding this. What do you mean by culture? What do you mean by "adopt"?

I support an immigration policy based on merit. And I'm not advocating for unattainable standards of merit either. Do you have job prospects? Are you a criminal? That's really all I care about. The only culture-related requirement I might suggest is that they speak english. And that's really more about practical functionality of our economic, academic, and political systems. But I think that's a pretty long way from ethnocentrism.

Where I've drawn the line, is between what I perceive to be fair, and unfair.

For example I mentioned language. If everyone speaks the same language, then everyone has the same access to information, the same access to education, etc. That's fair.

When a large population of people refuses to speak english, and essentially demands that our system provide bi-lingual access, at the system's cost, then that's unfair.

If there are people working "under the table" because they're undocumented...that's unfair

If those same people expect free education and medicaid for their children born here, that's unfair.

I believe Oskar's policy of coddling brown families at the Mexican border, while happily punting a white baby back over the Canadian border is unfair. I think babies of all colors should get punted back to the social services departments in their home countries. That's fair, no?

If immigrants travelling with children are given a free pass while those travelling alone are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...that's unfair.

I'm not sure what the number might be, but America does have a capacity for new immigrants. It is something that they at least try to control. I'm sure there are plenty of folks abroad just aching to get into America that are being delayed or denied access. Giving preferential treatment to immigrants at the Mexican border, merely due to physical proximity, is unfair.

One thing I do have a problem with, is business that close for things like Chinese New Year, or Cinco de Mayo. Maybe you could call that ethnocentrism, but I actually think it's something else. I find it kind of insulting really. Like, if Mexican Independence Day makes you feel patriotic enough to blow off work, why the fuck did you leave Mexico in the first place? We already have an independence day in America. It's when we celebrate the freedom that allows an immigrant to live, think, and work peacefully in the most prosperous nation on earth. No love for that though....it's just party-it-up on May 5th.

That probably sounds ethnocentric, but to me its not.

Let's say you're at someone's house for dinner. They serve ham. And you show up and say "nah, I actually don't like ham, but I've got a pizza coming, so I'll stay anyway". To me, that's called being a dick. Either eat the fucking ham, or don't come over. Not liking people who are dicks is not the same as ethnocentrism.

Yeah not agreeing with you on the last bit banana. If I came to live in USA, and England vs USA is a World Cup match, sorry bro but I'm supporting England. I'd celebrate July 4th with you all, but I'm not going to ignore my roots.

You can't expect Mexican immigrants to not celebrate whatever Mexico celebrates.

It's not like ordering pizza at some guy's dinner party. More like a few of the boys sneaking outside for a spliff, then coming back expecting another glass of wine.

youre full of shit ong. If i paraded through London dressed in stars and stripes and set off fireworks on July 4th you would rightly call me a cunt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's not like ordering pizza at some guy's dinner party. More like a few of the boys sneaking outside for a spliff, then coming back expecting another glass of wine.

---

I dont care what you smoke on your own, but if youre going to be sharing, roll a proper joint.

Sharing a spliff sounds so inadequately intoxicating I wouldn't feel bad demanding more wine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

youre full of shit ong. If i paraded through London dressed in stars and stripes and set off fireworks on July 4th you would rightly call me a cunt

---

Well probably, but only because that independance you're celebrating is from us. Historical butthurt, you ungrateful traitors.

Seriously though I wouldn't give a fuck. I like fireworks. I suppose if a fuck ton of Americans took over my town in celebration, yeah that would annoy me. But an American who lives in England, celebrating July 4th? I'd have a beer with you rather than call you a cunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I dont care what you smoke on your own, but if youre going to be sharing, roll a proper joint.

Sharing a spliff sounds so inadequately intoxicating I wouldn't feel bad demanding more wine

---

It'll be two spliffs at least. Probably three. I'm not smoking quarter of a spliff or whatever and then going back inside. And if I'm determined to get baked, a seasoned fucking pro, then we're all getting baked.

Here's what I'm talking about.

In my family, our Christmas Eve tradition is to have a massive lobster & shrimp feast. One year, when I was married, I hosted one such celebration. My wife's family was in town, and even though they were Jewish, they came too. My ex mother in law has a very old and very close friend that lives locally. This person is also Jewish, but since she was alone for the holidays, we invited her too.

I'm only mentioning the jewish-ness as evidence of NON-ethnocentrism. If I am the person MMM described then I wouldn't welcome jews to a christmas celebration unless they tore up their yarmulkes and got baptized first.

Now this friend of the family is a generally nice person, but is absolutely bat-shit crazy when it comes to compassion for animals. She sees her own house as a de facto cat orphanage (she had over 25 at one time). She literally will not kill a fly. She'll trap it with a paper cup, slide an index card underneath, and then take it outside and set it free. (It's fucking hilarious when the fly just zips right back inside ha ha ha). She would kidnap your dog if she thought for a minute that the animal was abused, neglected, or somehow kept in less than optimal conditions.

I'm not kidding. She's been arrested for exactly that more than once.

So anyway, this cunt accepts the invitation, but relays a message that she strongly insists that we not serve lobsters, citing the inhumanity of putting a live animal face first into boiling water.

My response was [paraphrased] "Fuck off, don't come"

Is that ethnocentrism?