|
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. |
On May 23 2017 18:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 12:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. R/The_Donald or the Redpill people are far more likely to be the source of the next terrorist attack on US soil, and definitely the next one to kill a massive number of people in the US. I've definitely heard of comment threads on the_donald about how to use violence to ensure that Trump remains in power indefinitely. So I ask, why hasn't Mike Pence or Donald Trump come out and condemned these terrorist breeding grounds? Is he in favor of biblical rules against witches that would allow him to exsanguinate and burn political opponents alive? Why haven't they condemned far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or Tuck Buckford? The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties. The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie. It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came? I'm not a fan of this trip. The only thing that I like is that he sold a shitton of weapons to the Saudis. What exactly is to be liked about that?
Then the Saudis can arm the radical islamist so the treath is sstill there and we can vote for Trump 2020. Would be my only guess.
|
On May 23 2017 19:40 BigO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 18:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 12:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. R/The_Donald or the Redpill people are far more likely to be the source of the next terrorist attack on US soil, and definitely the next one to kill a massive number of people in the US. I've definitely heard of comment threads on the_donald about how to use violence to ensure that Trump remains in power indefinitely. So I ask, why hasn't Mike Pence or Donald Trump come out and condemned these terrorist breeding grounds? Is he in favor of biblical rules against witches that would allow him to exsanguinate and burn political opponents alive? Why haven't they condemned far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or Tuck Buckford? The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties. The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie. It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came? I'm not a fan of this trip. The only thing that I like is that he sold a shitton of weapons to the Saudis. What exactly is to be liked about that? Then the Saudis can arm the radical islamist so the treath is sstill there and we can vote for Trump 2020. Would be my only guess.
Lol is that really your only guess?
Ignoring for a moment who the recipient is of these weapons, you can't see anything positive about closing a 110 billion dollar weapon deal?
People in this thread sometimes.
|
Weapon => something positive. People in this thread, indeed...
|
On May 23 2017 20:38 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 19:40 BigO wrote:On May 23 2017 18:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 12:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue.
R/The_Donald or the Redpill people are far more likely to be the source of the next terrorist attack on US soil, and definitely the next one to kill a massive number of people in the US. I've definitely heard of comment threads on the_donald about how to use violence to ensure that Trump remains in power indefinitely.
So I ask, why hasn't Mike Pence or Donald Trump come out and condemned these terrorist breeding grounds? Is he in favor of biblical rules against witches that would allow him to exsanguinate and burn political opponents alive? Why haven't they condemned far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or Tuck Buckford?
The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties. The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie. It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came? I'm not a fan of this trip. The only thing that I like is that he sold a shitton of weapons to the Saudis. What exactly is to be liked about that? Then the Saudis can arm the radical islamist so the treath is sstill there and we can vote for Trump 2020. Would be my only guess. Lol is that really your only guess? Ignoring for a moment who the recipient is of these weapons, you can't see anything positive about closing a 110 billion dollar weapon deal? People in this thread sometimes.
So your ignoring the main issue people have with the deal and then declare the deal a positive thing and wonder why people would be against it?
sigh, the recipient is the problem people are having with the arms deal...
|
On May 23 2017 20:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 20:38 Laurens wrote:On May 23 2017 19:40 BigO wrote:On May 23 2017 18:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 12:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties.
The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie.
It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came? I'm not a fan of this trip. The only thing that I like is that he sold a shitton of weapons to the Saudis. What exactly is to be liked about that? Then the Saudis can arm the radical islamist so the treath is sstill there and we can vote for Trump 2020. Would be my only guess. Lol is that really your only guess? Ignoring for a moment who the recipient is of these weapons, you can't see anything positive about closing a 110 billion dollar weapon deal? People in this thread sometimes. So your ignoring the main issue people have with the deal and then declare the deal a positive thing and wonder why people would be against it? sigh, the recipient is the problem people are having with the arms deal...
I'm not saying there's nothing negative about the deal, or that it is a good thing to do.
I'm pointing out that there are also OBVIOUS POSITIVE SIDES to the deal, which other posters apparently can't see? (Biff, BigO)
FWIW Obama had a 115 billion dollars weapon deal with the Saudis ready last september. They decided not to through with it due to the inhumane stuff happening in Yemen.
Trump has made it perfectly clear from the start that he is about America first. This is part of the reason why he got his votes. Hence he couldn't care less about what happens in Yemen as long as he gives his economy a big boost.
The positive impact of this deal on the economy cannot possibly be denied.
|
On May 23 2017 20:53 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 20:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2017 20:38 Laurens wrote:On May 23 2017 19:40 BigO wrote:On May 23 2017 18:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 12:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:
[quote]
Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came? I'm not a fan of this trip. The only thing that I like is that he sold a shitton of weapons to the Saudis. What exactly is to be liked about that? Then the Saudis can arm the radical islamist so the treath is sstill there and we can vote for Trump 2020. Would be my only guess. Lol is that really your only guess? Ignoring for a moment who the recipient is of these weapons, you can't see anything positive about closing a 110 billion dollar weapon deal? People in this thread sometimes. So your ignoring the main issue people have with the deal and then declare the deal a positive thing and wonder why people would be against it? sigh, the recipient is the problem people are having with the arms deal... I'm not saying there's nothing negative about the deal, or that it is a good thing to do. I'm pointing out that there are also OBVIOUS POSITIVE SIDES to the deal, which other posters apparently can't see? (Biff, BigO) FWIW Obama had a 115 billion dollars weapon deal with the Saudis ready last september. They decided not to through with it due to the inhumane stuff happening in Yemen. Trump has made it perfectly clear from the start that he is about America first. This is part of the reason why he got his votes. Hence he couldn't care less about what happens in Yemen as long as he gives his economy a big boost. The positive impact of this deal on the economy cannot possibly be denied.
Killing all the poor people would rise the average living standards, killing all the sick would solve a lot of the healthcare issues (not that it would be so far from what you are trying to do now ....) and nuking the entirety of the Persian gulf to oblivion would both solve all the wars in the region and provide easy access to oil fields. The positive impact of all those policies cannot be possibly denied.
Making up moves that are good for the economy isn't really that hard if you are willing to give up all you morale.
|
|
|
On May 23 2017 20:57 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 20:53 Laurens wrote:On May 23 2017 20:45 Gorsameth wrote:On May 23 2017 20:38 Laurens wrote:On May 23 2017 19:40 BigO wrote:On May 23 2017 18:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 23 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 12:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:[quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came? I'm not a fan of this trip. The only thing that I like is that he sold a shitton of weapons to the Saudis. What exactly is to be liked about that? Then the Saudis can arm the radical islamist so the treath is sstill there and we can vote for Trump 2020. Would be my only guess. Lol is that really your only guess? Ignoring for a moment who the recipient is of these weapons, you can't see anything positive about closing a 110 billion dollar weapon deal? People in this thread sometimes. So your ignoring the main issue people have with the deal and then declare the deal a positive thing and wonder why people would be against it? sigh, the recipient is the problem people are having with the arms deal... I'm not saying there's nothing negative about the deal, or that it is a good thing to do. I'm pointing out that there are also OBVIOUS POSITIVE SIDES to the deal, which other posters apparently can't see? (Biff, BigO) FWIW Obama had a 115 billion dollars weapon deal with the Saudis ready last september. They decided not to through with it due to the inhumane stuff happening in Yemen. Trump has made it perfectly clear from the start that he is about America first. This is part of the reason why he got his votes. Hence he couldn't care less about what happens in Yemen as long as he gives his economy a big boost. The positive impact of this deal on the economy cannot possibly be denied. Killing all the poor people would rise the average living standards, killing all the sick would solve a lot of the healthcare issues (not that it would be so far from what you are trying to do now ....) and nuking the entirety of the Persian gulf to oblivion would both solve all the wars in the region and provide easy access to oil fields. The positive impact of all those policies cannot be possibly denied. Making up moves that are good for the economy isn't really that hard if you are willing to give up all you morale.
There's also the problem of insularity in military economic consumption; the markets that are stimulated by military hardware sales tend to be a fair bit more disconnected from the overall economy in terms of benefit distribution. In other words, yes, selling billions in weapons will notch up that GDP, only it'll do so in terms that disproportionately benefit close market actors given the fucked up government contract process.
|
1- Get elected with a racist platform treating all muslim as terrorists abd proposing to ban all of them to even fucking visit, by people who anyway call islam a cancer.
2- Sell for a gazillion dollars of weapons to the one biggest fundamentalist radical islamic dictatorship in the world that is known for its shadowy relationship to international terrorism.
3- Logic!?!? None to be found, but no one who supports you care about that since day one.
4- Profit from your supporters expressing their satisfaction at the great job you are doing.
|
+ Show Spoiler [useless shitpost] +I feel ashamed of myself, how come I ever used the line "Kill the poor" without using the occassion to link the appropriate reference material!
|
On May 23 2017 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
1- Get elected with a racist platform treating all muslim as terrorists abd proposing to ban all of them to even fucking visit, by people who anyway call islam a cancer.
2- Sell for a gazillion dollars of weapons to the one biggest fundamentalist radical islamic dictatorship in the world that is known for its shadowy relationship to international terrorism.
3- Logic!?!? None to be found, but no one who supports you care about that since day one.
4- Profit from your supporters expressing their satisfaction at the great job you are doing.
Money talks, Trump is a capitalist. Nothing too different to most other US presidents. I love irony in the fact that Saudi-Arabia essentialy IS in the south what ISIS has tried to build in the north.
That trip might make it harder to play the islamophobia card in the future, though.
|
|
|
Canada13431 Posts
I mean, he is an idiot.
He called the people who committed the attack in Manchester losers - because they like the word monsters? And refused to use his patented "radical islamic terrorism" jab on his entire trip - the whole thing he campaigned on thrown out completely.
He's an idiot.
|
Could be a review for Disney World lol
|
Why are you faccepalming? Trump is taking his job to representate his voters very seriously. Sticking to his promises, you know!
|
United States44440 Posts
On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol
Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims.
|
Radicalised Islam is deplorable.
|
Canada13431 Posts
On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims.
Preach brother.
|
On May 23 2017 21:58 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 21:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
1- Get elected with a racist platform treating all muslim as terrorists abd proposing to ban all of them to even fucking visit, by people who anyway call islam a cancer.
2- Sell for a gazillion dollars of weapons to the one biggest fundamentalist radical islamic dictatorship in the world that is known for its shadowy relationship to international terrorism.
3- Logic!?!? None to be found, but no one who supports you care about that since day one.
4- Profit from your supporters expressing their satisfaction at the great job you are doing. Money talks, Trump is a capitalist. Nothing too different to most other US presidents. I love irony in the fact that Saudi-Arabia essentialy IS in the south what ISIS has tried to build in the north. That trip might make it harder to play the islamophobia card in the future, though.
I am sure Trump will say some "Islam/PoliticalCorrectness is the problem" stuff once he gets back to the States. I doubt he will even remember his trip beyond "it was wonderful, great really".
|
Did he think he was signing a school yearbook?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
