|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States22883 Posts
On March 16 2016 11:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:48 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:36 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 16 2016 11:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 16 2016 11:17 SK.Testie wrote:On March 16 2016 11:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, I just liked it more when it wasn't here. But now they will bravely face the mean liberals that might call them racist. They have built up the courage to come out of the shadows and live full lives, proudly showing their faces to the world and voicing their opinions, no matter how badly their feelings might be hurt by the r-word. Ok, first off. Calling people who disagree with you users from stormfront despite showing no allegiance to said thing is retarded. It's literally, "Our argument has no legs to stand on. Must be super horrible racists". I just posted a pretty civil german father with genuine worries for his daughter. "lol stormfront". Jimmy Carter did something not entirely similar but similar during the Iranian crisis with Iranians. I think you have real people who dislike higher rates of crime in their area. That's all it is. They think, "this is my country, I should have a say on who is allowed in and who isn't". 66% of Americans apparently think they have that say. Stop attempting to take a moral high ground you do not have, and have no right of claim to. I don't have an immigration policy, because I'm not running a country. But off the top of my head if I had one and I was a rich nation, I'd take mostly those whom want to work. And those whom are rich and educated. Much like Japans immigration policy. Also, despite every Republican attempt to thwart Trump they really should just STFU and give him the nomination already. Unlike Bernie, he's winning the popular vote by a landslide. So if the Republicans try to screw him over they're going to be legitimately angry and that will just further diminish the Republican party. He's truly crashing it with no survivors. Fun fact (or at least I'm pretty sure it's a fact based on the states I can remember): Bernie has won a higher share of the popular vote than Trump. And no, barring immigration from a nation is not the same as impossibly blocking immigration of an entire religion. He wouldn't if there were more candidates running. Naturally Trump's numbers will go up now that there are fewer candidates. Also blocking a religion is not as extreme or uncommon as you'd think. USSR did just fine for a long time by eliminating religion, and many if not most countries in the world take a strong stance in ensuring things stay the way that they are desired. Its only the liberal movement in western countries that has created the present situation. They won't go up by very much-and will definitely go up less than his competitors. It's hard to win a two-person race when you have higher unfavorables than your opponents. Explain to me our Muslim blocking procedure. Go ahead. I'm all ears and have been since Trump announced the utterly stupid idea. According to who people's second choice was, Trump was up there, so I disagree that his numbers will go up less than his competitors, and if they will, it'll be by very small amounts. And think about how any nation has phased out a religion in the past. Don't encourage it, don't allow universities to provide funding the mosques, screen for immigrants, have higher qualifications for muslim immigrants to enter the country. It's not like Trump will load however many million people on a boat once he becomes president and ship them away lol. Are you willing to condemn Trump if he doesn't propose cutting funding and tax breaks for churches as well? I don't support Trump, I don't live in the US, I think you guys have a messy situation. My main goal is trying to help people look at Trump without preconceived notions. I suppose that having been doing this for so long has given me some empathy for Trump, and maybe it makes me hope that he does well, because I think he has been treated unfairly in the mind of the voters, even though he might be an awful president. You said the USSR did well banning religion. Explain that shit. Short-term it has negative consequences, I was actually born in Slovakia and my grandpa was in prison (or whatever it was called back then) for 3-5 years for refusing to denounce being Catholic during the USSR era. I'd attribute a distinguishable portion of the growth in the USSR due to removing religion and focusing on science to solve their problems. Anyway, I think its arguable whether the USSR came out worse or better for it, since its difficult to predict what would have happened without those campaigns, but I certainly don't think it's a black and white answer as the people are making it here. Making a radical change in policy like this could be beneficial in the long term. I've read on the topic quite far back in the past, and it was far from being all negative. It seems like you're quite close to the issue personally, so I apologize if I was offensive, but if you haven't done any readings, maybe some of the wikipedia articles on the topic might make you see my viewpoint a bit.
I have done a lot of research on it. You're making a proposal which the vast majority of the GOP is vehemently against, except in the case against Islam. If you want to defend Trump's anti-Islamic rants, you should also be willing to take an anti-Christian view, which would nullify most of Trump/Cruz's supporters.
Beyond that, the USSR banning religion was part of a political war with the orthodox church, and actually carried pretty terrible consequences with it - it was only somewhat doable because the KGB was able to absolutely crush certain groups. It also led to blowback later on.
|
On March 16 2016 11:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Oh god, so now Bernie is just going down with the ship? Blame media bias? Sure Bernie, that'll help. That will transfer delegates from Clinton. The math doesn't add up. Bernie can't win anymore.
edit: Pretty fucking close in Missouri O_O
To be fair the remaining states are all polled to be a lot better for Sanders, but obviously not enough to close the gap.
On March 16 2016 12:06 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:36 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 16 2016 11:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 16 2016 11:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 16 2016 11:17 SK.Testie wrote:
[quote]
Ok, first off. Calling people who disagree with you users from stormfront despite showing no allegiance to said thing is retarded. It's literally, "Our argument has no legs to stand on. Must be super horrible racists".
I just posted a pretty civil german father with genuine worries for his daughter. "lol stormfront".
Jimmy Carter did something not entirely similar but similar during the Iranian crisis with Iranians.
I think you have real people who dislike higher rates of crime in their area. That's all it is. They think, "this is my country, I should have a say on who is allowed in and who isn't". 66% of Americans apparently think they have that say. Stop attempting to take a moral high ground you do not have, and have no right of claim to.
I don't have an immigration policy, because I'm not running a country. But off the top of my head if I had one and I was a rich nation, I'd take mostly those whom want to work. And those whom are rich and educated. Much like Japans immigration policy.
Also, despite every Republican attempt to thwart Trump they really should just STFU and give him the nomination already. Unlike Bernie, he's winning the popular vote by a landslide. So if the Republicans try to screw him over they're going to be legitimately angry and that will just further diminish the Republican party.
He's truly crashing it with no survivors. Fun fact (or at least I'm pretty sure it's a fact based on the states I can remember): Bernie has won a higher share of the popular vote than Trump. And no, barring immigration from a nation is not the same as impossibly blocking immigration of an entire religion. He wouldn't if there were more candidates running. Naturally Trump's numbers will go up now that there are fewer candidates. Also blocking a religion is not as extreme or uncommon as you'd think. USSR did just fine for a long time by eliminating religion, and many if not most countries in the world take a strong stance in ensuring things stay the way that they are desired. Its only the liberal movement in western countries that has created the present situation. They won't go up by very much-and will definitely go up less than his competitors. It's hard to win a two-person race when you have higher unfavorables than your opponents. Explain to me our Muslim blocking procedure. Go ahead. I'm all ears and have been since Trump announced the utterly stupid idea. According to who people's second choice was, Trump was up there, so I disagree that his numbers will go up less than his competitors, and if they will, it'll be by very small amounts. And think about how any nation has phased out a religion in the past. Don't encourage it, don't allow universities to provide funding the mosques, screen for immigrants, have higher qualifications for muslim immigrants to enter the country. It's not like Trump will load however many million people on a boat once he becomes president and ship them away lol. Are you willing to condemn Trump if he doesn't propose cutting funding and tax breaks for churches as well? I don't support Trump, I don't live in the US, I think you guys have a messy situation. My main goal is trying to help people look at Trump without preconceived notions. I suppose that having been doing this for so long has given me some empathy for Trump, and maybe it makes me hope that he does well, because I think he has been treated unfairly in the mind of the voters, even though he might be an awful president. You said the USSR did well banning religion. Explain that shit. Short-term it has negative consequences, I was actually born in Slovakia and my grandpa was in prison (or whatever it was called back then) for 3-5 years for refusing to denounce being Catholic during the USSR era. I'd attribute a distinguishable portion of the growth in the USSR due to removing religion and focusing on science to solve their problems. Anyway, I think its arguable whether the USSR came out worse or better for it, since its difficult to predict what would have happened without those campaigns, but I certainly don't think it's a black and white answer as the people are making it here. Making a radical change in policy like this could be beneficial in the long term. I've read on the topic quite far back in the past, and it was far from being all negative. It seems like you're quite close to the issue personally, so I apologize if I was offensive, but if you haven't done any readings, maybe some of the wikipedia articles on the topic might make you see my viewpoint a bit. I have done a lot of research on it. You're making a proposal which the vast majority of the GOP is vehemently against, except in the case against Islam. If you want to defend Trump's anti-Islamic rants, you should also be willing to take an anti-Christian view, which would nullify most of Trump/Cruz's supporters. Beyond that, the USSR banning religion was part of a political war with the orthodox church, and actually carried pretty terrible consequences with it - it was only somewhat doable because the KGB was able to absolutely crush certain groups. It also led to blowback later on.
Difference is one is a group that are already United States Citizens, another is not.
IMO Trump's imprecise language really hurt him here. He should have just straight up listed countries that he was going to ban travel from.
|
On March 16 2016 12:02 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. It isn't intellectually dishonest to question the relevancy of the fact that some (rural) Muslims treat women improperly when discussing immigration policy. The substantive character of Islam has little to nothing to do with the incredibly difficult problems inherent to customs/border crossing screening for religious identification, Constitutionality notwithstanding.
Actually, it's not some (rural), it's especially rural - that doesn't mean the rest doesn't do it (including non-integrated immigrants, from experience). Also the statement that was attacked was this:
But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly.
The part where it comes to immigration policy is imposed by you. Maybe i misunderstood, but he was simply hatespeeching Islam. Which is retarded, i know a few (granted, rather moderate) muslims (which btw agree, funny enough) - but yeah, his posting to me didn't seem like a political statement.
|
For the Bernie supporters who didn't see my post:
On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans?
On March 16 2016 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans? He should keep doing both, have some huge wins in upcoming states and either win or force it to the convention. Hillary v Trump she and America lose. I wish Bernie could win the primary, but the math doesn't work out in his favor unfortunately  Fortunately (to respond to kwizach's question), Bernie has already said repeatedly that even though he wants to win, Hillary would be a far better president than Trump or Cruz or any other Republican running... so I hope that after Bernie eventually concedes, he'll try his best to convince his supporters to vote for Hillary. That's me too: voting for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general election. I think that the shots Bernie is taking at Hillary are tactful and professional enough to not be seen as character assassination or scandal-related, and I don't really think that Bernie is instrumental in wrecking Hillary's chances in the general election. I think Hillary will be mostly to blame if she screws up the general election, and then secondarily Trump's effectiveness at dodging substance and just focusing on Hillary's weak spots.
The thing is -- he is attacking her character. He was still making the same attacks tonight as he's been making the last few weeks: she is funded by Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies and therefore she can't be trusted (he simply remains just shy of connecting the dots, to be able to claim he's not running a negative campaign). I was hoping that even if he did continue campaigning to keep pushing his message, he would at least stop the negativity towards Clinton and focus on an uplifting message to contrast progressive ideas and policies with what's going on on the Republican side. Unfortunately, right now he's being a sore loser and he's started to hurt the chances of Democrats instead of helping them. Hopefully he doesn't continue on this path, and it was just the result of being bitter tonight or part of a calculus to get a good deal with Clinton/the DNC for a speaking spot at the convention.
|
On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that.
Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women?
|
On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that.
Your cultural relativism is ridiculous.
In large rural muslim areas, convincing the head of the house that woman should vote, made as much sense to them, than if I told you your cat should vote.
Women are considered no different than cattle. If you ask a father about his sons, he will answer two; if you ask him about his property, he will say 3 goats, 1 camel and 2 daughters.
|
On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol
Again, I haven't seen any legitimate claims from your side. I am arguing the same as you are. I posted my opinion and reasoning, the same as you have. I linked the cnn post, because he or someone else asked for evidence of creating fake passports.
The definition of xenophobia is the intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries. Obviously, I do not have a fear of most people from most of the world(my girlfriends parents are from Jamaica). Muslims don't constitute the entire world do they? Not all arabs are muslim okay?
Islam has very legitimate concerns across the board FUNDAMENTALIST OR NOT. Look at all the rape, the mutilation, the genital mutilation done to women in many different areas of the world. Egypt which is one of the "LESS" radical Islam nations in the middle east is one of the largest countries of female genital mutilation
In pretty much every Islamic country, homosexuality or homosexual acts is illegal including Indonesia.
|
On March 16 2016 12:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:America has one of the most complicated immigration vetting processes in the world. It can take years. https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/immigrant-process.htmlin regards to Islamic views on women who cares. If their willing to come here and follow our laws isn't that the only important thing? and compared to some of the traditionalist Christian views in America I don't see how its any worse than what we already have Following laws is never enough. What I mean is that there is a big difference between working to make the nation a better place because your truly believe that the country is doing the right thing, making the world a better place, etc. Versus not liking this country, but following the laws only to the extent to prevent you from getting in trouble, taking advantage of the system when you can, having little moral regard for what the country stands for, etc. Laws cannot be made in a way that makes people behave exactly how we want them to. It's up to the people to align their minds with what the country stands up for, and that's why back in the day nationalism was such an important thing, and why having a unified country is way better than having a divided nation, just like the USA is now, even though more or less everyone is following the laws.
that's an incredibly dangerous way of looking at it. You do realise what extreme nationalism does right? plus your assuming that a country is already as good as it can because in your scenario there's no chance for ethical progress.
Plus you can like the country overall but disagree with certain things. Also people's views can evolve a lot. I don't see how thinking women should have a different role then they currently do in a country=don't like the country. plus theirs the argument that what you do in your own home has a lot of freedom in this country as long as you follow the rules
|
On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women?
Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers.
|
|
|
On March 16 2016 11:59 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:31 Jibba wrote:
What do you think morals are?
It's baked into the moral compass of the country that we shouldn't do what you're describing, and btw Japan's immigration policy is an utter disaster.
Americans are safer than they've been in a long time - both from internal crime and from terrorism. It's fear mongering with no data or research to back it up. That's why we call it xenophobia/racism. There is no evidence that justifies their fear.
We know you hate religion and Muslims, but you haven't made a real case in support of the policy. I hate Islam most definitely. I don't hate all Muslims I come across because many of them are more secular and hardly "actually" Muslim. I hate many Muslims, that is true. But that's something I would still reserve special judgment for on a case by case person. I still think they have a right to free speech. But a right to free speech and expression is not a right to freedom of movement from one country to the other. A country can say whom it deems acceptable to come in and out of its borders. I didn't say to silence Muslims, nor close down Mosques and Madrasa. I think that'd be a great benefit personally, but freedom of speech is supremely important. I just think that they've already lost the debate and it's time to pack religion up and call it a day. As much as I'd like other people to shut up, so long as they are non violent I don't believe in shutting down freedom of speech. Canada has a very small Muslim population, multiple large scale terror attacks were thwarted here in recent years despite the population being quite small. They wanted to cause major damage as well. So yeah, maybe when Saudi Arabia wants to attempt to build a Wahhabi Mosque I think, "... nah that's probably not a good idea".
Holy fuck that is messed up. I have Muslim friends. No big deal there bro. Only thing I run in to is a preference that I don't feed their kids hot dogs when they stay over with my kids, but even then they are kind of "whatever".
|
On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers.
Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement?
I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world".
|
On March 16 2016 12:10 synapse wrote:
RIP bernie :/
It's not as bad as it seems, the last group of delegates are more likely to fall towards Sanders. IMO should continue to run to spread his message. Force Hillary to take the discussion to the left.
On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world".
I would say, so long as money is involved. Everyone is objectified.
|
On March 16 2016 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans? He should keep doing both, have some huge wins in upcoming states and either win or force it to the convention. Hillary v Trump she and America lose. I wish Bernie could win the primary, but the math doesn't work out in his favor unfortunately Fortunately (to respond to kwizach's question), Bernie has already said repeatedly that even though he wants to win, Hillary would be a far better president than Trump or Cruz or any other Republican running... so I hope that after Bernie eventually concedes, he'll try his best to convince his supporters to vote for Hillary. That's me too: voting for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general election. I think that the shots Bernie is taking at Hillary are tactful and professional enough to not be seen as character assassination or scandal-related, and I don't really think that Bernie is instrumental in wrecking Hillary's chances in the general election. I think Hillary will be mostly to blame if she screws up the general election, and then secondarily Trump's effectiveness at dodging substance and just focusing on Hillary's weak spots.
The math is tough, but it's not insurmountable. Big wins in big delegate states could change things. It's a fine line Hillary's camp has to walk.
They have to make it seem like it's over to discourage Bernie supporters and still make sure folks turn out to support her so those blowouts don't happen.
On that note, yeah it's totally over you guys might as well just focus on the toss up states like Florida.
|
If any Bernie supporters are interested in learning about the Hillary camp (not necessarily joining), drop me a line and I'll try to address your questions and concerns. I think you'll find that there's a lot to like and less to dislike.
Cheers.
|
-weird half double post- -i don't understand-
|
On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2016 11:32 SolaR- wrote:
Lol i love how liberalism turns on itself. They support feminism and LBGT rights, but at the same time won't condemn Islam. Islam and Islamic culture is the chief enemy of feminism and gay rights. But Trump is a terrible person because he makes an inapproiate joke That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers.
imo that by itself isn't even what's so hilarious about it. It's just that in contrast with the hatered for the more "normal" scenarios where you see boobs. Like all the shit about breastfeeding and whatnot
|
On March 16 2016 12:11 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 12:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 16 2016 12:08 oBlade wrote:On March 16 2016 12:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2016 11:57 m4ini wrote:On March 16 2016 11:53 farvacola wrote:On March 16 2016 11:48 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:44 Jibba wrote:On March 16 2016 11:42 SolaR- wrote:On March 16 2016 11:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That's 1.5 billion people. Liberals are all about nuance and maybe like condemning specific nations or regions. Condemning all of Islam just make you sound uneducated. Not really ignorant, its realistic. Sure not all muslims are terrorists. But I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly. You can't argue that. Most religions are fundamentally horrible, Islam being one of the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there has been little reform in comparison to other judiac religions, actually its probably gotten worse. Cite something. What is your background/education to make any of these determinations? First get rid of your bias. You are asking me to site my background/education when there has been tons of assertions from the other side who have not provided their qualifications or facts. Just useless rhetoric and ideology. article on isis ability to make fake passports. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/ And this, my friends, is a perfect example of xenophobic logic at work. Dude made a variety of strong theological claims relative to Islam, was prompted for some sort of authority or citation in support of said claims, and then promptly linked a cnn article on Isis' ability to make fake passports. lol While i agree that that was dumb, his point about females in (especially rural, which there's alot of) islamic areas still stands. It's not a secret either. So while i agree that he seems a bit xenophobic, there's quite a few intellectually dishonest people here as well. Sure, but when he said "I would say a high majority of muslims treat women improperly", I would point out that it's really the case that "a high majority of all people treat women improperly". Just because women can vote doesn't mean that women are equal or treated fairly, especially in America. Granted, Muslim extremists are particularly shitty when it comes to respecting women, but even American culture continuously objectifies and disrespects women... and we don't even need Muslims to do that. Could I ask what you mean when you say American culture objectifies women? Clearly we're all sexist pigs because we have commercials of girls in bikinis with tig ol' bitties in bikinies eating fat burgers. Would you argue "women are objectified" is a false statement? I don't even talk "US", i talk "western world".
I'm wondering how it's both oppressive to force women to wear certain clothes to make them be modest and oppressive to let women wear and do what they want.
|
On March 16 2016 12:12 ticklishmusic wrote:
If any Bernie supporters are interested in learning about the Hillary camp (not necessarily joining), drop me a line and I'll try to address your questions and concerns. I think you'll find that there's a lot to like and less to dislike.
Cheers.
To be honest, the thing that bugs me about most Sanders supporters is the "Bernie or Bust" sentiment. Hillary is far more nuanced than Sanders, which is something you want from a candidate, and it's been pretty disgusting of Sanders and his supporters to try and paint her positions as black/white.
|
On March 16 2016 12:06 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2016 11:54 Mohdoo wrote:On March 16 2016 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2016 11:39 kwizach wrote:
Serious question: how do the left-leaning posters who were supporting Sanders over Hillary in this thread feel about him (1) continuing his campaign and (2) continuing his attacks against Hillary?
I mean, anyone with a grasp of reality surely knows Hillary will be the nominee of the Democratic party, and will be the only left-leaning/progressive/liberal candidate fighting in the general election with a shot at winning. Even if you support Sanders getting his message across, do you not agree that it is counter-productive to keep attacking the Democratic nominee and to fend off attacks on two fronts (Trump & Sanders) instead of focusing on the Republicans? He should keep doing both, have some huge wins in upcoming states and either win or force it to the convention. Are you saying when you look at the numbers, you conclude Bernie can win? After tonight, there are 2053 delegates left, with Clinton around 300 delegates ahead. Technically Sanders just needs an average margin of about 65% of the vote in the remaining states to reach 2026 of the 4051 people's delegates. And hope super delegates switch allegiance. Such a Margin is possible according to demographics in Idaho (23 delegates), Utah (33 delegates), Washington (101 delegates), Wyoming (14 delgates), Oregon (61 delegates), Montana (21 delegates). And then there's the other 23 states yet to vote.
If we factor in super delegates, Clinton gains 472 and Sanders 23, but the goal posts go up to 2383.
Then Sanders needs to win 1728 delegates from 2053 people's delegates and 217 unpledged super delegates. Let's say all remaining super delegates go to him: he still needs a margin of 74% in remaining states. Splitting the remaining super delegates 50/50 raises that by 5%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
