Printable View
Nearly everything kills Americans faster than a rate of 7 per year (~100 in 15 years).Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lightning strikes kill us at a rate of ~50 per year. So you were 7 times more likely to have died by lightning strike over that 15 years than to a jihadist attack.
Auto accidents kill Americans at a rate of over 30,000 per year. Does that mean you're super brave to drive a car?
No, I don't think so.
Which side am I on this time?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Are you terrified of cars?
The money we spend to prevent this tiny percentage of deaths while we have a national infrastructure in desperate need of re-shoring is where I see disconnect.
It seems like investing in brand-spanking-new roads and bridges would save far more lives than anything related to anti-terrorism.
Shh, that sounds like logic to me, instead of hysterical rhetoric.
I read the same book you did. I won't refute any part of that history lesson. All I said was that we used to be cool, and now we're not. How we got that way doesn't seem to have much relevance in regards to how we handle immigrants in Q1 of 2017.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Ok. Religion also has nothing to do with why we're closing off immigration for three months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If your point is that Saudi Arabians are some of the worst people going, you won't get much argument from me. But again, you're refusing to see the motivation behind the "ban list". It's not about who's citizens have done bad in the past. It's about our ability to vet people. And on that front S.A., Pakistan, Qatar, and UAE are cooperative, Iran, Yemen, Syria and Somalia are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So you're saying that the whole point of the "ban" (your word) was to antagonize certain countries for not being our allies? To shame them for not being our friends? The "ban" isn't based on just who's an ally and who isn't, it's about who can provide sufficient vetting information to satisfy our National Security concerns...and who can't. It's just common sense that you see a correlation between levels of cooperation, and status as an ally. Friends help each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If I say to you that you can't come into my house because I don't like you, then you're banned, even if I add the caveat "I might reconsider in future if I decide I like you".
Stop being nitpicky about the word ban. It's an entirely approriate word.
Also, in the context you used the word, it's "whose", not "who's". I figure that wasn't a typo, and you seem like a literate guy who, like me, would appreciate being corrected.
It's funny really because I certainly like Trump more than Clinton, and feel he has a very, very long way to go before I'll be saying "I wish Clinton won". And I also completely respect the right of a sovereign nation to say which foreigners can and cannot cross the border.
But I'm not seeing a particularly honest approach to this matter from the Trump administration.
Trump has been bellowing about defeating terror, a muslim ban and a muslim registry for so long now. How are people supposed to interpret it when he bans immigration from certain countries that are also muslim? Further, what is the purpose of banning Iranians when they've never been linked to a terror attack ever (or at least not since 1979). Meanwhile countries like S.A. that support ISIS (and by proxy terror) get a free pass. Makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I seriously doubt all of those countries are keeping terror lists. It's not like your immigration guy is going to call up Pakistan and say 'this Ahmed guy is he a terrorist?' and the Pakistani official will be able to tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I really don't understand its purpose. Or better yet I have some ideas about its purpose but they have little to do with a nearly non-existent terror threat. My beef is with it's complete opposition to what I'd like America to be, and the way it's being implemented in this rushed and haphazard way.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Possibly, but in your earlier post you gave that book a totally different spin. You made it sound like they suddenly turned on you because of the Islamic revolution. Truth is they hated you long before that, and it wasn't because of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So yeah, you can ban them if you want, it's your country. But let's not try to say it's about stopping terror.
btw, I'd like to retract this statement and replace it with 'Suck it, bitch'Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
stupid
adjective
1.
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
"I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"
synonyms: unintelligent, ignorant, dense, brainless, mindless, foolish, dull-witted, dull, slow-witted, witless, slow, dunce-like, simple-minded, empty-headed, vacuous, vapid, half-witted, idiotic, moronic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse, doltish;
They're supposed to use their brains and look at the whole picture. There are 50-ish muslim-majority countries in the world. We only banned 7 of them. Obviously, we must be using criteria other than religion to narrow down the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Your presumption is flawed. No one gets a free pass. If you come here from Iran, China, Germany, or Canada, border security is gonna wanna know who you are, and why you're here. Finding that out is easier with immigrants from some countries than it is with immigrants from others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So please don't take me literally when I simplify border security procedures for the purposes of making an argument in a forum. I'm sure we have more robust vetting procedures than to simply pick up the phone and say "who's this fuckin guy?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's purpose is to buy time in order to develop better border security procedures. It's only temporary, so suggesting that it opposes your preferred identity for America is a little bit of an extreme view in my opinion. I will agree that Trump doesn't get good grades for implementation. The outrage over that oversight is bordering on comical though. Inconvenience is not injustice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I thought I read that it bans American citizens from returning home from those countries during this period.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Clear injustice to suspend "innocent until proven guilty" on American citizens.
I'm certain that colleges and universities are going ballistic over the fact that students and professors who are on legit visas are being denied access to return to their school / work.
I don't know if "injustice" is the right word, but it seems like we have accurately vetted plenty of people from those countries already, and denying them entry to the USA seems overboard.
Well, duh. I wasn't implying they just say 'Saudi passport? Right this way sir.' I meant they say 'Iranian passport? Fuck off. Saudi passport? We'll consider you.' Big difference in what I meant and how you spun it as if I have no idea how immigration works.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's more than an inconvenience when families can't be united and people can't go to work because of this order. We're not talking just about people having to cancel a holiday ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You can spin it any way you want, it's still a shit order that has no legitimate purpose. If America were being inundated with terrorists from these countries, it would make some sense. But it ain't so.
https://media.tenor.co/images/9a2d2a...3539e7b4c3/rawQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The bolded does not compute. Last I heard, at least half of the people in limbo have been granted waivers, and by tomorrow, I'll bet there won't be anyone being held at an airport who has a right to be here. This wasn't a surprise order. People have known what's up since November. They travelled anyway, because.....I don't know. Maybe they're spoiled idiots who think that rules don't apply to them. All I see is a bunch of whiners who say "but I'm not a terrorist....this shouldn't happen to me!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I mean, since 9/11 we americans have given up some of our convenience and privacy in order to feel safe on an airplane. Most people suck it up. But every once in a while you see that dumb bitch in the security line who doesn't understand why her liquids have to be in 3oz containers. Or how about that lady who got pulled off an Alaska Air flight for her anti-trump rant a week or so ago. "But I'm going home for a funeral, you can't pull me off the plane".
When I look at the protests on TV, all the signs and chants are saying "muslims & refugees welcome". I don't think its accurate to assume that there wouldn't be this outrage if the order allowed people with green cards and visas, but still banned refugees. That's why I say the outrage here is manufactured. It's just people who hate trump looking for an excuse to hate trump.
It's not spin to point to the situation in Europe and say "we need a better way to handle these refugees"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's not spin to recognize the fact that ISIS's own propaganda and publications suggest refugee immigration as a way to infiltrate western countries for the purposes of an attack.
You're saying we should wait until it happens here before we react?
Not to be gross, but at one point in my life I had problems with IBS. And during that time I made a trip to Canada. My friends and I were forced to sit in a waiting area for over an hour while they checked our papers and searched our car. They would not let me use the bathroom. And I needed it, badly. I wasn't technically "detained", or arrested, or anything like that. I was just held in a room, that I wasn't allowed to leave, and I wasn't allowed the human dignity of being allowed to use the restroom.
I am a dual citizen, US/Canada. Should I have just been allowed to say "Hey fuck face, I salute the maple leaf, now let me in!"?
No
I had to allow the border agents to make sure I wasn't smuggling, terrorizing, or otherwise doing something nefarious to their country. And during that time I was forced to endure severe discomfort and humiliation.
Where's my team of pro-bono lawyers?
Where did refugees come into this? And how many refugees are fleeing Iran?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Your point being that all border guards are assholes? Yeah, welcome to the world we live in. But they didn't say 'oh sorry sir, you're from a banned country, now turn around and go home', did they?
Edit: So...did you shit your pants?
Is that a joke? The answer is....'the very beginning'Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, my point being that if you want to enter a country, you need to accept that security measures are in place. And you need to abide by those security measures, no matter how inconvenient they might be. Otherwise, turn around and go home!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
America's leader, empowered by voters, has decided that the current global climate requires additional security. If it's an inconvenience for you, turn around and go home!.
From what I can tell, most people who have green cards, visas, or are US Citizens are getting waivers, and are getting through. It sucks that takes time, and that there are administrative hurdles, but it's not like these people are being trucked to Gitmo and waterboarded. It's also somewhat their own fault for travelling anyway when they either knew, or should have known, what Trump was up to. Yes, a better implementation could have smoothed these problems. But if that's all people are mad about, there wouldn't be massive protests and non-stop media outrage.
The outrage comes from a false narrative that this is religious based discrimination. And that narrative inexplicably ignores the fact that citizens and immigrants from some 40+ muslim majority countries can still come here unabated.
No, they finally let us go. After which, I dropped a dirty bomb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Also,
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/29/1...isis-terrorism
STOP!! Please!! My sides hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This quote sums up the entire premise of the article which totally ignores that muslim suffering is CAUSED by ISIS.Quote:
By blocking refugees from several Muslim countries and prioritizing Christian ones, the Trump administration seems to be sending the message that the US doesn’t care about Muslim suffering. ISIS propagandists couldn’t have said it better themselves
I mean, what are all these refugees seeking refuge from anyway?
Sheesh.
The whole argument that doing anything that negatively affects muslims will only serve to piss off muslims is total bullshit. And even if it wasn't bullshit, so what? They can be pissed off without killing civillians. It's like you're saying that Muslims are ignorant savages and need to be dealt with as such. For some reason we need to meet them on their ignorant savage level. If we don't, then they're justified in being total pricks.
Ok Kellyanne Bananastand.
So by that logic we shouldn't have cared about the Holocaust because it was Germans killing the Jews, not us. We shouldn't care about refugees from any civil war because it's them killing them.
So this assumes that a peaceful, reasonable muslim would initially, by virtue of his moral beliefs, 'reject an apocalyptic ideology of hatred". And then, that same Muslim somehow espouses the uninformed notion that he's not welcome in America. And that sequence of events will somehow make him sympathetic to an "apocalyptic ideology of hatred".Quote:
Indeed, on Saturday, Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement making that exact point: “Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred,” the senators explain. “This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”
If Muslims are that easily pissed off that a simple 3 month moratorium on immigration can turn an otherwise reasonable person into a Caliphate seeking jihadi soldier.....then we should seriously consider a permanent, world-wide, religious based ban.
Who wants that shit in their country?
What happened to your history book? America's involvement in WWII had very little to do with Jewish genocide. In fact, for much of the war, that part of the story was far from common knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And it's not an apt analogy anyway. By making it, you're saying that by being indifferent to the German killing of Jews, then we were empowering other Jews to join the Nazi army.
Ok you're just twisting my words around. No point arguing with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I keep rereading that article poop, and every time I see something else that's just flat out retarded.Quote:
But now, thanks to Trump’s executive order, ISIS’s message can seem a lot more convincing. If you're a young, confused Muslim kid seeing Trump advisers like Rudy Giuliani openly admitting that this is a “Muslim ban” done “legally,” it’s a lot easier to believe an ISIS recruiter who tells you the American government is at war with Islam
They're basically saying here that America shouldn't do anything, ever. Because anything we do can be "spun" in a way that makes us look bad.
Its analogous to a lawmaker who believes abortion is a states rights issue. Its' very easy then for the opposing party to say to a young woman "see he doesn't want you to have reproductive rights". Stuff like that happens all the time. Americans deal with it through elections and civil discourse. We don't tolerate people who use violence and fear to control the message. Unless they're muslim apparently...then its' ok right? We should change what we do and how we act so that we don't accidentally piss them off and give them an "excuse" to blow us up.
You realize that means they won right? You're ok with that?
The exactly same argument that I quoted from the article, could be used to make it illegal for women to drive in america, or go outside with their heads uncovered. That pisses them off too much. We should also outlaw gay marriage, and decriminalize bigamy. Any family unit incompatible with their interpretation of Islam should be offensive to everyone right?
If you believe this article, then ISIS is really a benevolent moderate organization that doesn't really care that we provide millions in aid to their sworn enemy; Israel. They were fine with all that until we decided to implement a 3 month immigration moratorium. THEN they turned into murderous savages????????????
Denying Americans due process of law is injustice, by violation of American's rights under American law. Those rights under American law do not change based on where your body is at any given moment, as is clearly stated in the laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I prevaricated, because I thought I read that, but can't find the source.
The other point starts with "IDK," so I can't suss what doesn't compute about it.
I thought this came out relatively quickly, but if there was a few months warning that this was coming, then I do place responsibility on the people who left the USA, knowing they my have a difficult and prolonged reentry process.
I have no outrage.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I have no hate for Trump.
What did I ever say to give you these impressions?
***
I hope I'm wrong, but this seems like the classic example of why there is such vitriol on all sides. You're ascribing emotions and ideologies to me which I do not espouse and have not expressed.
You did it earlier, too, when you expressed that I had chosen a political side and was spouting that side's rhetoric.
I'd like to be clear that I do not blindly repeat talking points. I side with liberals on many issues and with conservatives on many issues. I do not consider myself to be either liberal or conservative until you tell me the issue upon which you want my political opinion.
I do not feel that either political party describes my political thoughts. I think the left and the right both make excellent points and that if either side were ceded full control of things, it would all work out fine... quite differently, but fine in both cases. I do not embrace the notion that people who disagree with me are bad people, or stupid, or evil, etc. I believe that intelligent people on both sides have a world view that is consistent, and that they could make their vision work.
I'm not sure it's a "right" to be allowed unfettered international travel. And I don't think anyone is being denied due process. The process is, come back in 3 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
C'mon man, the quote form me that you used there conveniently dropped the opening sentence to the paragraph where I stated "when I see people on TV....". If your'e taking that personally, maybe you should turn down the sensitivity knob.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
In regards to your earlier comment, it was my interpretation that you think that a low, non-zero, number of american casualties is acceptable, or at least, not that big of a deal. I merely pointed out that alot of people, including Obama, agree with you. I think there is one side that differentiates between a nuclear armed N. Korea and a Jihadi operative detonating a bomb on an NYC subway. And on the other side, they believe that terrorism is an equally urgent threat. Just because I used your sentiment as a jumping off point to discuss the political landscape as a whole, doesn't mean I'm impugning you personally.
I apologize if I've offended, but please understand that very few, if any, of my comments were directed at you specifically.
High-five dude! I feel the same way. I'm a pro-choice, pro gun control, atheist but have almost always pulled the lever for a republican. I'm all over the map too. Kinda sucks that common sense doesn't have it's own political party.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Fantastic, that makes everyone varying degrees of stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
In the first case, you're spinning it to presume that what's happening in Europe is inadequate.
In the second case, you're spinning it to assume that even if those things matter and will be acted upon, the level of threat to Americans is notable.
If at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I mean, I support spending a commensurate amount of tax dollars to prevent an appropriate amount of deaths, in comparison to other causes of death which are addressed by those tax dollars.
C'mon... ~7 per year is nothing.
It's hard to look at the numbers and see it as anything but hype and cowardice.
Dictionary time!Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I do not believe they had the right to deprive you of the dignity of using a toilet (or whatever hole in the ground passes for Canadian hygiene :p ).
JK, obv. No need to apologize.
:p
Sometimes you make it so easy.
There are plenty of cases in life where you have no choice but to bite the shit sandwich and take it like the rest of us, but there is every reason to be upset when someone hands you a shit sandwich and tells you it's PB&J.
I disagree. This is exactly the point in the discussion where learning happens, but you can't shy away from it just because it's difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So long as there are no personal attacks, there is a framework for the productive exchange of ideas.
It is a right to be considered and treated as innocent until proven guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
As I understand, due process involves, among other steps, trial by a jury of your peers. It is well-defined in that sense, even if "peers" is contentious sometimes.
I disagree with your disagreement. The exchange of ideas can only be productive when the ideas follow one another in some kind of logical vein. Two people talking past each other might be cathartic, but it's not productive. If you talk about oranges and I argue why you're wrong about apples it's not a useful conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I believe it's the right of every Canadian not to have American waste being dumped on Canadian soil.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://www.askideas.com/media/48/On...me-Picture.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Almost slipped one by me. Your undoing was when Savy agreed with you; that's when my gut started to tell me something wasn't right.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You make an excellent point, but I counter with:Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It takes 2 to tango.
If you suppose that his twisting of your words was unintentional, then you have nothing more than a misunderstanding. If you then explain your side w/o exasperation, then it's on him. If he continues to talk past you, then you're right. There is no conversation happening, so nothing to really teach him. However, it is up to you if you simply must teach him while you learn from him.
I mean... wuf and I don't really have anything to teach each other, but we have a lot to learn from each other, if that makes sense.
Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Good one.
Canadian rights.
Dual citizenship mutha fucka!! I can shit where I want!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I have dual citizenship because my father was born about 4 miles over the border, and lived there until he was about three days old. Other than that 72 hours, you have to go back multiple generations to connect me to Canada. But the law is the law, so it counts.
Ironically, despite all the railing I do against immigrants on the grounds that they consume american resources without giving anything back, that's exactly what I intend to do to Canada if I ever have a catastrophic health problem. I'm just gonna drive up to a Canadian hospital, show them my last name, and demand all the free shit I have coming to me, despite never contributing a thing to the well being of Canadian society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Moratorium on Americans! Protect our shitters!
Politifact should be avoided on account of bias. I've seen many times in which it evaluates the same statements differently dependent on who gives the statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Tell that to Constantinople. Tell it to the many millions who have been raped, murdered, or enslaved for the purpose of Islamism. Just because America has so profoundly rejected a political ideology on par with Nazism that our casualties are scant doesn't mean that political ideology isn't hellbent on our subjugation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Religion of peace. Unless you're mean to it. Then you deserve death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Cruz will very likely be my guy in 2024.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Both.Quote:
The only question I have concerning your conversion is whether you've actually bought into Trump, or if you simply believe Scott Adams' claims about his powers as a hypnotist and aspire to develop similar powers yourself.
My policy positions haven't much changed, but when it comes to Trump, policy is rarely discussed in a reasonable way, so my policy disagreements don't see the light of day.
Regarding "buying into Trump," back when I was against him, I had the same problems with him that are displayed by others here. I thought he was simply stupid and kinda mean. I would view things like him making sometimes somewhat contradictory statements as him being a total dummy, but then I began reading Adams and a few others and became convinced by their arguments that what he's actually doing is A/B testing. I think the A/B testing explanation makes more sense than the IQ-of-a-lampshade or drowning-in-the-water-of-narcissism arguments.
As far as aspiring to learn from him, yep that's there and it's big. I'm not a fan of a lot about his style. My style is much different, but there are many things that can be learned. For example, when it comes to body language, speaking with open palm gestures is very charismatic and persuasive. I normally do that and have discovered that's one reason am a quality conservationalist and presenter. However, if you watch the way Trump does the open palms stuff, he brings it to a whole new level. He often combines the negative movement of closed-fist and pointed-finger with open-palm, which makes him look authoritative AND unoffensive at the same time. It's something I have incorporated for rare occasion now.
Peter Thiel could totally be California governor come 2019.
I'll bet on the field. Even in this election, Cruz was an unattractive candidate for the republican party. He's made a career of rubbing people the wrong way. I don't see the republican party putting money behind him in a primary.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, Republicans won this time because they captured more of the middle, Cruz moves them back toward the right. The old GOP is gone. Or if it comes back, it will die a slow, painful, humiliating death.
Also....Kanye
I don't disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Cruz is just the guy I agree with on just about everything whom I think can win.
Of those I think will run, Cruz is the only one I like. Well, and Rand Paul but I don't think he can win the general.
Kanye, Peter Thiel, Ivanka. Can you imagine?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
... but they're so bad at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Maybe they would be better if we didn't spend the last decade and a half just rompin and stompin Iraq and AfghanistanQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Just sayin...
Edit: Also, if we didn't leave so much of our own shit over there, they'd all pretty much have their dicks in their hands at this point.
My bet is on eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
A) Someone who's currently padding their resume in the Trump administration. Jeff Sessions, Rick Perry, someone like that
B) Someone with some celebrity who appeals to the middle just enough to win. Someone like Dean Cain. But also, not Dean Cain.
Congrats on conquering a couple of third world countries. The British Empire would be proud.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No idea how ISIS started I guess...
Why does it matter how ISIS started? If we wiped them out tomorrow, they'd just be replaced by some other angry entity bent on a caliphate. As long as there is violent, inflammatory, oppressive, Wahabbi bullshit spewing out of Saudi Arabia, there will always be radical jihadists. I thought we agreed on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My only point is that we spent a decade and a half diminishing terrorist networks and their support from rogue nations. Certainly that made a difference and is a big reason why they're so bad. They're on their 7th string quarterbacks at this point.
I don't think it follows logic to now say "well they only kill 7 people a year, why are we so aggressive?"
Remember the head and shoulders commercial? "But you don't have dandruff!!" EXACTLY!!
It goes way back. Some dude named Muhammos. Muhamalam? Mumahhad? Why am I forgetting this one? Anyways, he killed lots of people and his followers are supposed to follow him, or something. I don't really remember. Mahummad? I think that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I lol'd. Sounds like something Hopper would say.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
inb4 Thiel.
Quebec mosque attacker was student Alexandre Bissonnette.
Birth of radical Christian alt-right terror?Quote:
Francois Deschamps, an official with an advocacy group, Welcome to Refugees, said the suspect was known for his far-right views.
Who was the second guy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
EDIT: Nevermind. Cops changed their story
A witness.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01...or-attack.html
Interesting chart in the article. I would have guessed Canada has a lot less terrorism. Seems I didn't understand how much Canada likes to antagonize Islam.
Canucks be hatin'Quote:
The French-speaking province of Quebec has been embroiled in a lengthy debate about race and religious accommodation. The previous separatist government of the province called for a ban on ostentatious religious symbols such as the hijab in public institutions.
The CBC reported that someone left a pig's head on the mosque's doorstep this past June, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Islam's holy book, the Koran, forbids them from consuming pork
These types have had terrorists among them as far back as they go. What they don't have is organizational ideology and mobilization to that effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If we're dealing with separatism, it's something else. There's ideology and mobilization for terrorism in there sometimes.
Foul early, foul hard.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9b16519fd0e4
I'm not stoked by the executive order that for every new regulation, two must be cut. I think this will be only slightly more effective than not effective at all. If taking this route, it would probably need to be something like cut five regulations for every one created, or something more specific that would disallow loopholes. Bad Trump!
Could be that this is a small part of a bigger whole, so okay then.
I'm pretty sure Trump and others at the top already have a laundry list of regulations they want to ditch. This EO just provides the cover they need to dispose of them quickly and quietly.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Either that, or the entire thing is largely for show. Trump running up the score.
Either way, it will probably do enough good to pay off the effort it took to implement. Political implied odds.
How many y'all seen the MSM tell Obama to shut the fuck up? You know, since he spoke out against the President today?
Here's the amount of MSM shills we've seen do that: 0.
I remember back in 09 how the media BOMBARDED the airwaves with how Bush had better not say a goddamn fucking word about Obama. How it's TRADITION for ex-Presidents to keep their shitholes shut. How Bush would be fucking betraying fucking Earth if he said the remotest of peeps inside a year of leaving office.
Where's the media now? Where are they telling Obama to stick a sock in it?
Every day now, the MSM shows us that they are lying to us.
MSM?
mainstream media
Oh. IDK. I don't follow those sources.
As I recall, you can find either side's bias in MSM sources, so if even the right sources aren't saying it, then IDK.
I don't have an exact quote, but I sorta remember Obama giving the impression that he would remain active and visible in politics, even before he left office. He's not calling out Trump by name, and he isn't really in control over what the headlines are.
I always criticize the MSM for manufacturing outrage when they rail against Trump for doing something totally expected and consistent with his character. Like the access hollywood tape. How did they think he talked in private? duH!
It sucks that they have different standards for Trump, but I can't criticize the MSM for having the right take on Obama here.
He's choosing to be an activist. We just got to live with it. It's a free country.
The exiting President is supposed to be a ghost. At least when he's a Republican.
And this is what I don't want to happen to people, including to youQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
At what cost?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Little to none.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So you do know perfectly well who the real culprit of all this brouhaha isQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What evidence is there that lax border crossing standards result in greater safety?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
The ineffectiveness of western governments at creating sustained peace in the Middle East doesn't mean they are to blame. Blame those who espouse the horrible political ideologies of murder and subjugation that have taken over the regions instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The Lord of Twitter himself called it a ban.
https://i.imgur.com/bsY6YHL.png
Syrians are on the indefinite list, other countries are supposedly pending the 90 days.
This is a very complex issue, but it has a few very simple actors. The blame can be spread around, and if you are lookin for a cause you will find it. As long as you are looking for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There is many many many layers to this, and there are many many issues going on at the same time in the Middle East. The sum of these issues manifests itself as the malaise we have on our hands right now.
In any case, the only real ways of dealing with problems is finding the actual cause(s) and fixing it(them), making the problem go away eventually. Hint: Goatfuckers Intl. aka Terror Inc. is not the cause of the disease, just a symptom.
For those that mentioned the Mossadegh incident in ’53, impressive.
What evidence is there to suggest my post said this? I highly doubt it would result in greater safety. I just think that the positives of defence by doing something like this are minimal at best and then all the extra negatives it does like straining international relationships, pushing negative stereotypes of foreigners make it a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There's also the fact that it creates a barrier for the absolutely fantastic people from other countries that want to move to America and contribute massively.
TROLL LEVEL OVER 9000!!!!
https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/8...rc=twsrc%5Etfw
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
This 'brouhaha' was caused by an incoming president, bent on fulfilling a campaign promise and boosting his own popularity, hastily implementing a policy despite the best advice of those deemed most knowledgeable about the problem.
Remember....when Obama pulled out of Iraq.
And now here we are
About Iraq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOuLkfJjtgQ
So the video seems to be saying that the last 40 years of conflict is all because rogue nations are trying to sell oil in currencies other than dollars. That's obviously oversimplified. I mean, ISIS isn't angry because they miss Saddam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
But if we assume there's at least some truth in this clip, aren't you glad Trump is president?
If the problems hinge on banking, currencies, and trade.......who's more qualified?
Kinda funny if you read through the feed. It seems anyone who disagrees either gets attacked, or ignored. And they still wonder why Trump won the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Two pretty awesome points
1) Carter went ape-shit on Iranian immigrants during the hostage crisis. Even had the FBI re-investigate people who were already here. No protests at airports.
2) Saudi Arabia has an empty tent city with plumbing, air conditioning, water, and room for 3 million refugees. Except they have a policy to not accept muslim refugees. Have for years apparently.
Can someone explain to me why this is being called a "terrorist" attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
By definition, Terrorism requires a political motivation. The last report that I saw, used the term "terrorist attack" in the headline, but the body of the article stated that police are still unclear as to motive.
Also, 'intimidation' is a key factor in defining terrorism. By all accounts, this guy is working alone, and there is no threat, or suggestion of future violence from a larger organization. That kinda removes any ongoing fear.
If this guy is a terrorist, then so is Dylan Roof. Why are we re-branding hate crimes as terrorism when it happens at a mosque?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ok,I'llbite:
1) Shouldn't we learn from past mistakes? In todays information day and age, shit's gonna go down differently
2) Shouldn't you lead by example? Saudi Arabia is not the best role model in pretty much any situation, to put it nicely.
Kal Penn, btw, is born in New Jersey.
Also funny how the recurring rhetoric in the feed is:
WEE NEED A STRONGER VETTING PROCESSS!!!!
But what is the current vetting process? Do you know how it goes down?
I DUNNO, IM NO EXPERT, BUT I KNO WE NEED A STRONGER ONE
But we already have a very strong one, it's already in place
DEMOCRATS CAN JUSTIFY TREATING US CITIZENS LIKE SECOND RATE PPL NEXT TO SYRIAN REFUGEES
Wow, that escalated quickly
Oh, also this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6_q7o6PGuA
Isn't this exactly the republican line, though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
We don't need to spend national tax dollars because individuals who support this will spend their own dollars. It doesn't mean that America doesn't support it, it means that our support comes from individuals as a choice rather than en masse as a mandate.
This is both sides working together as intended, but not realizing it.
From Ben Swann himself, same dude from Pizzagate Special EditionQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTymr-K8H5k
And another from Vox. Sorry, can only embed one vid per post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzmO6RWy1v8
I agree with all except the bolded. Islamism goes way back. Way before oil and America. Islamism was there before foreign governments provided it with a new opening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Who said it was a mistake?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Lead who? Wouldn't a better example be to influence those countries who have the means to accept refugees, to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Not sure why that's relevant. But good trivia I guess, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
[QUOTE=Jack Sawyer;2272536]Also funny how the recurring rhetoric in the feed is
Why is that funny? We do need a stronger process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I don't know how a lot of things work. THat doesn't mean I can't recognize a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I have no idea what my car does with the gas I put in it, I just know it needs some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
NO WE DON'T!! And that's where the opposition to this policy fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
If your car's engine stopped working, you'd take it to a mechanic. You'd trust that mechanic to assess the problem, and provide a solution. You do this because you lack the expertise and intimate knowledge of engines to diagnose and fix the problem yourself. So when the mechanic says "you need a new engine", you believe him.
What we have here, is liberals pointing to their broke-down car and saying "but it already has an engine"
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/fb...or-ties-video/
Our "mechanic" in this case is the FBI and other national intelligence agencies who are actually the ones responsible for vetting people coming in to the US. They have stated, publicly, that they do not have the procedures and information necessary to vet people. They are telling you that your car needs a new engine.
Anyone who says "we already have a good vetting process" is claiming to be more of an expert, and have more information, then the Director of the FBI.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
And ISIS is a renaissance. The caliphate goes back to Muhammad.
What are you arguing for? Open borders?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Because for whatever reason I knew you would see right around that. See, this whole beef started because some other dude told this dude, Kal Penn, that he doesn’t belong in America. He, and American born and raised in New Jersey, was told that he doesn’t belong in America.
Why? Such an odd thing to say right?
Oh, that’s right, his name is Indian. He looks very much Punjabi. He speaks with a particular accent. You can see where that is going.
He then started a fundraising page for Syrian refugees in his name. Initially with a $2500 goal, and in less that 2 days, they raised 3/4 of a mirrion
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
James Comey? Please.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minut...efugee-crisis/
“I Went Through America’s Extreme Vetting
I’m a Syrian refugee. Trust me, it’s plenty tough.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...vetting-214703
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...g-process.html
http://lancasteronline.com/news/loca...d615e5030.html
“How long does the vetting process take?
The U.S. Department of State says on its website that the average processing time is 18-24 months.”
What do you want to accomplish adding 90-120 more days to that? Syrians got *kband though
“Individual cases may vary vastly, as LNP learned from interviews with refugees resettled in Lancaster. Mustafa Nuur, of Somalia, on the other hand, underwent six years of health screenings and invasive interviews before entering the U.S.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...-process-work/
“Syrians initially file refugee claims with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which then refers them to the U.S. government. The process has no guarantee of approval and takes so long — Syrians wait nearly three years for approval to come to the U.S. — that experts said it would be a longshot for an extremist group to rely on the refugee program as a way to sneak someone into the United States. The Islamic State group has had far more success appealing to people already living inside the United States to commit or conspire to commit violence. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told lawmakers this week that roughly 70 people have been charged with crimes related to foreign-fighter activity and homegrown violent extremism since 2013.”
Religious extremism is one of the main problems yes, not only Isis.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Terrorism needs weapons. Weapon manufacturers need customers. Wars need both.
Ever seen “Lord of War”?
Good movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
You're right as long as we're talking contributions. As long as we're talking cause, it's different. Tons of places and people have tons of weaponry and don't use them for murder, rape, and enslavement. Islamism does. The cause is Islamism.
You're wrong in that isn't the whole story; you pick and choose which parts of it favor your narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's as though you don't believe there is such a thing as Muslim police. It's as though you believe that if a billion people wanted to invade you, they'd be stopped by anything short of all out war. It's as though you believe that Muslim nations don't have their own international economic and security concerns which are shit-canned by terrorist activity. It's as though you believe that all the various Muslim extremist groups have the same agenda.
It's as though you don't believe there are Christian extremists and Jewish extremists which cite their own religious scriptures as justification of violence.
It's not cool.
Well I didn't know the backstory, most of the "problem" was blurred out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Really dude? Really? I know it's fun sometimes to talk about "those idiots in Washington". But when it's time to get real, you have to admit that these are all highly educated, exceptionally driven, and wildly successful people. James Comey is not an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
What he's saying there, is that there is no source of proper information. If he was wrong, someone would have come along in the last fifteen months and said "nah dude...we got what you need right here". Instead, seems that the only ones bellowing about our already great vetting procedures are open-border-loving lib-tards who happen to be well travelled just enough to act like know-it-alls.Quote:
“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said in response to a line of questioning from Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson.
“And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”
Look, I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find all kinds of horror stories of one or two people who got a hard time that shouldn't have. Shit happens. Most of what I see in those articles is people being "invasively interviewed". Big deal. If a ISIS fighter were posing as a refugee, he's probably prepared to keep secrets while being tortured at a CIA blacksite. Your 'invasive interview' doesn't intimidate him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Unless that guy has done something to make him visible to US intelligence we can interrogate him, like Comey said, "til teh cows come home" and it won't matter. Its totally irrelevant that the process takes 18-24 months. It could be 18-24 years. That doesn't make it better, or safer. What would make it better is if we could call Syria and ask "did this guy ever pop on your radar? When? With whom? etc etc". Syria won't take the call. So....we have to come up with something better on our own. Until we do, close the book