|
On October 31 2018 03:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 02:59 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2018 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 02:54 Grumbels wrote:On October 31 2018 01:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 01:00 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 00:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2018 19:21 Plansix wrote:Oh, so it’s no longer since 9/11. Now it’s including 9/11 and then includes anything else that people labeled Terrorism, rather than “lone wolves”. I was wondering how we were going to get to thousands when it is around 200 people since 9/11. I had to include 9/11 because GH's figures for white supremacist homicides start in 2000. Fair is fair. Even if you throw out 9/11, there are still more Muslim-terrorism-related homicides than white supremacist homicides in the US. Toss in sophisticated global networks, reach, and financing, all of the failed attempted schemes, and the sheer amount of resources that US defense and intelligence agencies are throwing at Muslim terrorism, and there simply is no denying that Muslim terrorism is the much bigger threat. Like I said, it's not even close. Yet y'all simply must focus on evil whitey. What do we call that kind of irrational racial animus? Oh, that's right: RACISM. I appreciate your strong stance on this matter. You are therefore strongly in favour of immediate sanctions on Saudi Arabia, given that they are among the biggest single supporters of muslim terrorism in the middle east? You are also very strongly against selling guns to them given that many of those firearms will end up in the hands of said terrorists? Don't be so puerile in your analysis. Immediate sanctions of Saudi Arabia are unrealistic for a variety of reasons, including 1) the disruption it would cause to oil markets, 2) the role the Saudi government is playing in combating Muslim extremism (yes, this is complicated and problematic), and 3) the check that the Saudis provide on Iran in the Middle East. Though I am no fan of the Saudis, we can't just dump them overboard. It will take decades to unwind our relationship with them. And yes, I'm generally fine with selling weapons to the Saudi government. What I was less enthusiastic about, however, was Obama's policy of arming ISIS in Syria for the sole purpose of destabilizing Syria. Though I generally liked the idea of having all of the terrorists and assholes fighting it out over there, there is going to be a long term price paid for arming, training, and encouraging radical Muslim rebel forces in Syria. Many of those radicalized rebels are going home to Western countries, which is one of the reasons why there has been an uptick in terrorist activity in Europe since the Syrian Civil War started. Yes, completely unlike the long-term price for letting the Saudis go completely unchecked, funnelling vast amounts of money and weapons into the terrorist networks you've already said cost the US millions to combat. I mean, I appreciate the lame attempt to blame Obama for everything - it's obligatory after all - but your nation's stance towards SA is clearly the main problem here. Blaming Obama for a standard US foreign policy procedure is hypocritical in the extreme. Arming insurgent groups to do your dirty work is old as the hills. See: Taliban. On October 31 2018 01:46 Plansix wrote:
Legislation that will be dead in the water. But it’s nice Graham has shown his true colors as a racist old man acting like a moderate. This and Trumps efforts to strip citizenship from Americans born near the border is white nationalism finally taking over the main stream Republican party. At least they have the courage of their racist convictions. And likewise XDaunt. His glee at this says a lot. xDaunt would have 100% been a gleeful nazi supporter not just in 1933, but in 1942 or so. It takes some seriously willful stupidity to conclude that considering my (often outspoken) support for the Constitution, the rule of law, and civil liberties. But hey, I get that many of you aren't capable of understanding this. So you support the immediate passage of an updated voters rights act and Election Day being a federal holiday? Depends upon what's in the VRA. As for Election Day being a federal holiday, I really don't care. Voting works just fine where I am. I see it as a state-level problem.
A law that allows the federal government to prevent the overt voter suppression going on in Georgia and North Carolina.
|
On October 31 2018 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:
But hey, I get how much you love calling everyone idiots, so you do you.
And let me take a moment to address this comment. If people are going to make patently stupid posts, I'm going to point them out. There are smart ways to disagree with me. Many of you never bother to do it. I think the main reason why you don't is because you truly do not understand right side of the political spectrum, including its philosophies and underlying intellectual underpinnings. I have no doubt that most of you would struggle to articulate and explain a conservative position on anything. In contrast, there are certain liberal posters whom I know certainly could (Igne is just one example), which is why I get along just fine with those posters despite that our points of view couldn't be more different.
Long story short, don't make stupid posts if you don't want to be called out for making a stupid post.
|
One could apply the same principle to supporting white nationalism principles and goal. If someone doesn’t want to be called racist, don’t say things racist say or want things that racists want.
Unless you have a black friend or married a minority, then you are immune.
|
On October 31 2018 03:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:
But hey, I get how much you love calling everyone idiots, so you do you. And let me take a moment to address this comment. If people are going to make patently stupid posts, I'm going to point them out. There are smart ways to disagree with me. Many of you never bother to do it. I think the main reason why you don't is because you truly do not understand right side of the political spectrum, including its philosophies and underlying intellectual underpinnings. I have no doubt that most of you would struggle to articulate and explain a conservative position on anything. In contrast, there are certain liberal posters whom I know certainly could (Igne is just one example), which is why I get along just fine with those posters despite that our points of view couldn't be more different. Long story short, don't make stupid posts if you don't want to be called out for making a stupid post.
Or maybe discussions are contentious because your ideas are not absolutes, and that it is ridiculous to assume and speak as though they are. If you want to start pointing the finger at political ignorance, go ahead and point it right back at yourself. Your staunch unwillingness to acknowledge liberals and progressives as anything but people who loathe their country is all I need to remember. If you want people to understand your so-called misunderstood point of view, why don't you give it a go yourself? Until then, don't come at me with this holier-than-thou business.
|
On October 31 2018 03:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:
But hey, I get how much you love calling everyone idiots, so you do you. And let me take a moment to address this comment. If people are going to make patently stupid posts, I'm going to point them out. There are smart ways to disagree with me. Many of you never bother to do it. I think the main reason why you don't is because you truly do not understand right side of the political spectrum, including its philosophies and underlying intellectual underpinnings. I have no doubt that most of you would struggle to articulate and explain a conservative position on anything. In contrast, there are certain liberal posters whom I know certainly could (Igne is just one example), which is why I get along just fine with those posters despite that our points of view couldn't be more different. Long story short, don't make stupid posts if you don't want to be called out for making a stupid post.
This would work better if it didn't come at the end of a comment chain that was kicked off by your numbers-based and relatively weak attempt to dismiss white supremacy as a concern that ended with you trying to twist on a bit about racism against whites. In capital letters, no doubt, so we all know how serious you are.
You think that argument is good, but it's patently stupid to a lot of people here. So... you know. You get what you give and you give what you get. It also doesn't help that you display open glee at deploying the army against a caravan of starving migrants and denying children born in the US citizenship of the US. And there's been plenty of times in the past that you've seemed quite jazzed by the idea of non-white people suffering.
You're not at 'I'm not saying he's a racist I'm saying the racists say he's a racist' or anything, but you sure do like to use their talking points and speak them with conviction. And just for clarity, I'm not saying you're a racist. But I've seen you strongly argue for these talking points before, and outright white nationalist ones in other threads.
And I've not really seen you do a good job of presenting an understanding of liberal points of view either, and I think you'd struggle to present a nuanced liberal position, so that part of your comment is a complete semantic null.
Yes, people who are not Conservative do not fully understand Conservative points of view (for the most part, at least). Go figure.
|
On October 31 2018 03:41 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:
But hey, I get how much you love calling everyone idiots, so you do you. And let me take a moment to address this comment. If people are going to make patently stupid posts, I'm going to point them out. There are smart ways to disagree with me. Many of you never bother to do it. I think the main reason why you don't is because you truly do not understand right side of the political spectrum, including its philosophies and underlying intellectual underpinnings. I have no doubt that most of you would struggle to articulate and explain a conservative position on anything. In contrast, there are certain liberal posters whom I know certainly could (Igne is just one example), which is why I get along just fine with those posters despite that our points of view couldn't be more different. Long story short, don't make stupid posts if you don't want to be called out for making a stupid post. Or maybe discussions are contentious because your ideas are not absolutes, and that it is ridiculous to assume and speak as though they are.
What do you mean by "absolutes?" I certainly am under no delusion that everyone accepts my ideas.
If you want to start pointing the finger at political ignorance, go ahead and point it right back at yourself. Your staunch unwillingness to acknowledge liberals and progressives as anything but people who loathe their country is all I need to remember. If you want people to understand your so-called misunderstood point of view, why don't you give it a go yourself? Until then, don't come at me with this holier-than-thou business.
I dunno, feel free to point out where you side with your country. I'm not forcing you take constantly take positions against it, such as promoting open borders policies or opposing pro-American trade reforms. Or we could talk about the general leftist opposition to nationalism and notions of American Exceptionalism. Or we could go into GH territory and discuss progressive disdain for the Constitution and the progressive belief that America's founding is inherently sinful. Once you start looking at the world through the Marxist lens of the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, it become pretty hard love your country.
|
On October 31 2018 03:44 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:
But hey, I get how much you love calling everyone idiots, so you do you. And let me take a moment to address this comment. If people are going to make patently stupid posts, I'm going to point them out. There are smart ways to disagree with me. Many of you never bother to do it. I think the main reason why you don't is because you truly do not understand right side of the political spectrum, including its philosophies and underlying intellectual underpinnings. I have no doubt that most of you would struggle to articulate and explain a conservative position on anything. In contrast, there are certain liberal posters whom I know certainly could (Igne is just one example), which is why I get along just fine with those posters despite that our points of view couldn't be more different. Long story short, don't make stupid posts if you don't want to be called out for making a stupid post. This would work better if it didn't come at the end of a comment chain that was kicked off by your numbers-based and relatively weak attempt to dismiss white supremacy as a concern that ended with you trying to twist on a bit about racism against whites. In capital letters, no doubt, so we all know how serious you are. You think that argument is good, but it's patently stupid to a lot of people here. So... you know. You get what you give and you give what you get. It also doesn't help that you display open glee at deploying the army against a caravan of starving migrants and denying children born in the US citizenship of the US. And there's been plenty of times in the past that you've seemed quite jazzed by the idea of non-white people suffering. You're not at 'I'm not saying he's a racist I'm saying the racists say he's a racist' or anything, but you sure do like to use their talking points and speak them with conviction. And just for clarity, I'm not saying you're a racist. But I've seen you strongly argue for these talking points before, and outright white nationalist ones in other threads. And I've not really seen you do a good job of presenting an understanding of liberal points of view either, and I think you'd struggle to present a nuanced liberal position, so that part of your comment is a complete semantic null. Yes, people who are not Conservative do not fully understand Conservative points of view (for the most part, at least). Go figure.
Of course I think that my argument was quite good. Because it was. It was being argued that white supremacy is a major problem when it comes to terrorist threats. A quick look at the numbers showed that it really isn't. And to the extent that it is a problem, it pales in comparison to the threat of Muslim terrorism. Perhaps you believe that white supremacism is a major domestic terrorist threat, and that Muslim terrorism is an even larger threat?
|
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read.
The opposition to nationalism is easy, it leads to wars, was the excuse for British imperialism and was political stance of the Nazi party. The Jingoistic underpinnings of Trump and adoption of the American first platform is emblematic if the worst aspects of nationalism.
And given my experience with your understanding of US history, Sinful equates to anyone expesssing a full, unvarnished telling of the history of America.
|
On October 31 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read.
Great, so that means that you now are in favor of turning away the caravan coming up through Mexico? How about tough border controls like the wall? How about deporting everyone who is here illegally? And closing the loophole of birthright citizenship?
|
On October 31 2018 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read. Great, so that means that you now are in favor of turning away the caravan coming up through Mexico? How about tough border controls like the wall? How about deporting everyone who is here illegally? And closing the loophole of birthright citizenship?
How about there are positions in between. Don't be a dick.
Don't try to assume people who don't agree with you must hate their country. That's step #1 for a conversation not being laughed out of the room. If you don't want to be greeted with a dismissive schtick when you bring it up, try not doing it in the first place. Thanks.
|
On October 31 2018 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read. Great, so that means that you now are in favor of turning away the caravan coming up through Mexico? How about tough border controls like the wall? How about deporting everyone who is here illegally? And closing the loophole of birthright citizenship? How about there are positions in between. Don't be a dick. Don't try to assume people who don't agree with you must hate their country. That's step #1 for a conversation not being laughed out of the room. If you don't want to be greeted with a dismissive schtick when you bring it up, try not doing it in the first place. Thanks.
Like I said, please explain why you think that my charge is unfair. I certainly have been up to the task in explaining why it is incorrect to state that the basis for every conservative policy is white nationalism.
|
On October 31 2018 04:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read. Great, so that means that you now are in favor of turning away the caravan coming up through Mexico? How about tough border controls like the wall? How about deporting everyone who is here illegally? And closing the loophole of birthright citizenship? How about there are positions in between. Don't be a dick. Don't try to assume people who don't agree with you must hate their country. That's step #1 for a conversation not being laughed out of the room. If you don't want to be greeted with a dismissive schtick when you bring it up, try not doing it in the first place. Thanks. Like I said, please explain why you think that my charge is unfair. I certainly have been up to the task in explaining why it is incorrect to state that the basis for every conservative policy is white nationalism.
Because saying "oh, you don't fit the three checkboxes I've laid out for what constitutes patriotism in my eyes? you must hate America" is as absolutely ridiculous as it sounds. I'd have way more patience for this if you, ever once, stopped to ask yourself whether other people might have a point, rather than constantly trying to "be right".
Don't try to dump assumptions into people's mouths and then wonder why you're not getting stellar conversation out of the endeavor.
|
There is in fact mass migration going on in the US from rural areas to wealthier urban areas, from Kansas to Texas, from New Mexico to California and so on. The USA is massive and has open borders internally despite the huge wealth disparity between states. Although this creates some problems it’s politically toxic to make addressing it part of your platform. There are a few fringe figures that want to create an independent California, but it’s considered a joke on the national scene.
The reason that open borders not just nationally, but internationally becomes an extremist point of view is because the actual disenfranchisement of literally everyone outside of the US. They are part of the same world, part of the same world order dominated by the US, but they don’t have a voice. The people of Iraq didn’t get to vote whether they wanted to be invaded, all the various countries in Central America or Africa ravaged by climate change (caused by the West) didn’t get to influence our consumption patterns. If you’re born in the US you get to stay there for free, if you’re born two meters outside of the border and you like to live in the by far wealthiest country in the world because you’re dying of poverty (typically created by US imperialism or corporate domination), then you become a parasite, an economic migrant, an illegal immigrant who needs to be locked in a cage.
|
On October 31 2018 04:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 03:44 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 03:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:
But hey, I get how much you love calling everyone idiots, so you do you. And let me take a moment to address this comment. If people are going to make patently stupid posts, I'm going to point them out. There are smart ways to disagree with me. Many of you never bother to do it. I think the main reason why you don't is because you truly do not understand right side of the political spectrum, including its philosophies and underlying intellectual underpinnings. I have no doubt that most of you would struggle to articulate and explain a conservative position on anything. In contrast, there are certain liberal posters whom I know certainly could (Igne is just one example), which is why I get along just fine with those posters despite that our points of view couldn't be more different. Long story short, don't make stupid posts if you don't want to be called out for making a stupid post. This would work better if it didn't come at the end of a comment chain that was kicked off by your numbers-based and relatively weak attempt to dismiss white supremacy as a concern that ended with you trying to twist on a bit about racism against whites. In capital letters, no doubt, so we all know how serious you are. You think that argument is good, but it's patently stupid to a lot of people here. So... you know. You get what you give and you give what you get. It also doesn't help that you display open glee at deploying the army against a caravan of starving migrants and denying children born in the US citizenship of the US. And there's been plenty of times in the past that you've seemed quite jazzed by the idea of non-white people suffering. You're not at 'I'm not saying he's a racist I'm saying the racists say he's a racist' or anything, but you sure do like to use their talking points and speak them with conviction. And just for clarity, I'm not saying you're a racist. But I've seen you strongly argue for these talking points before, and outright white nationalist ones in other threads. And I've not really seen you do a good job of presenting an understanding of liberal points of view either, and I think you'd struggle to present a nuanced liberal position, so that part of your comment is a complete semantic null. Yes, people who are not Conservative do not fully understand Conservative points of view (for the most part, at least). Go figure. Of course I think that my argument was quite good. Because it was. It was being argued that white supremacy is a major problem when it comes to terrorist threats. A quick look at the numbers showed that it really isn't. And to the extent that it is a problem, it pales in comparison to the threat of Muslim terrorism. Perhaps you believe that white supremacism is a major domestic terrorist threat, and that Muslim terrorism is an even larger threat?
Yes I believe that's a fair analysis of my view. Islamic terrorism - important to make the distinction, there's plenty of white Muslims - is a bigger worldwide threat probably (bearing in mind that white supremacy is on a massive resurgence in the EU), but I believe that white supremacy has its hooks deep in the soul of America, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the state.
There's no debating both that Trump has used white supremacist language - he literally has, you can find it - and some people close to him and in the GOP have done likewise. That's very worrying.
The Charlottesville... riot? Is it officially a riot now? The incident, stands as a reminder that those groups aren't insignificant. They're there, they aren't massive, but they're there, inside America right now, and they have plenty of people in government who are sympathetic towards them.
The problem I see is that the US government is very unwilling to label attacks by white people to be terrorism. That makes it conversely very hard to really get a feel for the scale of white supremacist movements. But also because it's homegrown, there's going to be incidents we never hear about. For a purely US scale, I think the scale of threat is probably equal on the societal level. Certainly, more money is spent against Islamic terror, but that's a whole complicated thing and I'm sure you'll agree it wasn't anywhere near as big an issue until the War in Iraq happened.
In a very real sense we're all still paying for that colossal error in judgement.
But on the white supremacist front, there's no denying they got a big shot in the arm by Trump becoming President. That should be very alarming. I want to make it very clear, if Jeremy Corbyn get elected in the UK and marxists started marching and rioting I wouldn't be happy about that either, and if a Democrat got elected in the US and ANTIFA started holding demonstrations and riots I'd expect the Dems to speak out and try to do something about it. This isn't a hate the right thing.
But one important concept I hold to is the idea that the leading/ruling party has the chance to set and shape the dialogue. It isn't on the Democrats to lead it. You guys have the Presidency, you guys have - at least for now - both chambers of Congress as well. You can absolutely lead the discussion and choose its tone, and the choice your guys have made is to be combative, aggressive, aggrieved, and classless at every turn. I'd like it if the Democrats weren't affected by that, but that's just not how these things work.
Focusing in specifically on the terrorism issue, I think actual terrorism is still about equal, but I think White Supremacists are far more corrosive to US society, and are doing much more damage. 9/11 itself inflicted a psychological wound your nation might never heal from, but the actual physical aftershocks are kind of at a low ebb now. You're not at the level we're at with such things, but we had The Troubles. We've seen it all before.
Islamic terror is a threat you can fight, and mostly see coming. It's an outside context problem, even if a lot of it comes about because of foreign policy decisions. White Supremacy is all homegrown and, from my perspective, I think the US - unless you're African American of course - isn't as wary of what that means as we are in Europe.
|
I thought the lefties here got sick and tired of being stereotyped and lumped into communist or SJW or authoritarian, and here I see Nazism/white supremacy crop up from multiple people with the stupid “what you say qualifies it to me, so stop saying it if you don’t want to be called it.”
If your arguments are so piss-poor that you have to compare to 1942 Nazis to make any headway, you’re leaving yourself wide open to stupid comparisons back the other direction. Oh, and don’t bother trying to claim you stand on the side of civility ... you’re just as bad as Trump calling fake news proponents “enemies of the people” if you’re going all Godwin’s law. That leaves you with zero room to criticize Trump when you adopt his worst aspects.
|
On October 31 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:
I thought the lefties here got sick and tired of being stereotyped and lumped into communist or SJW or authoritarian, and here I see Nazism/white supremacy crop up from multiple people with the stupid “what you say qualifies it to me, so stop saying it if you don’t want to be called it.”
If your arguments are so piss-poor that you have to compare to 1942 Nazis to make any headway, you’re leaving yourself wide open to stupid comparisons back the other direction. Oh, and don’t bother trying to claim you stand on the side of civility ... you’re just as bad as Trump calling fake news proponents “enemies of the people” if you’re going all Godwin’s law. That leaves you with zero room to criticize Trump when you adopt his worst aspects.
They heard there were conservatives talking over there yonder and decided to go ruin that for them. What more can you really expect from the usual suspects?
|
On October 31 2018 04:27 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 04:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read. Great, so that means that you now are in favor of turning away the caravan coming up through Mexico? How about tough border controls like the wall? How about deporting everyone who is here illegally? And closing the loophole of birthright citizenship? How about there are positions in between. Don't be a dick. Don't try to assume people who don't agree with you must hate their country. That's step #1 for a conversation not being laughed out of the room. If you don't want to be greeted with a dismissive schtick when you bring it up, try not doing it in the first place. Thanks. Like I said, please explain why you think that my charge is unfair. I certainly have been up to the task in explaining why it is incorrect to state that the basis for every conservative policy is white nationalism. Because saying "oh, you don't fit the three checkboxes I've laid out for what constitutes patriotism in my eyes? you must hate America" is as absolutely ridiculous as it sounds. I'd have way more patience for this if you, ever once, stopped to ask yourself whether other people might have a point, rather than constantly trying to "be right". Don't try to dump assumptions into people's mouths and then wonder why you're not getting stellar conversation out of the endeavor.
I'm not trying to be "right." I'm asking you what your point is, and you are refusing to give it to me. I have highlighted roughly half a dozen major areas of concern that I have when it comes to progressives/liberals and patriotism. And I have even gone so far as explaining what I believe to be unifying theme of it all. You objected to my argument, so I invited you to explain why I'm wrong. I'll leave it to you to figure out how best you want to do that, but a couple possibilities would be "Yeah, you're right about my position on those things, but here's where I show that I truly am patriotic" or "No, those aren't unpatriotic positions at all and here's why."
|
On October 31 2018 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read. Great, so that means that you now are in favor of turning away the caravan coming up through Mexico? How about tough border controls like the wall? How about deporting everyone who is here illegally? And closing the loophole of birthright citizenship?
They can apply for asylum and be reviewed, which is the law. And I’m sure it will happen two months from now. Illegal immigrants are deported. I would prefer an alternative since our visa and immigrant system has been neglected for 40 years. Birthright citizenship isn’t a loophole, it is constitutionally protected. If you don’t like it, get two thirds of the country to agree with you or get the fuck out.
But let’s call this what it is, an argument in bad faith. I’m for open borders unless I agree with every one of the conservative principles on immigration. Unless I do that, I’m for open borders.
|
On October 31 2018 04:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:
I thought the lefties here got sick and tired of being stereotyped and lumped into communist or SJW or authoritarian, and here I see Nazism/white supremacy crop up from multiple people with the stupid “what you say qualifies it to me, so stop saying it if you don’t want to be called it.”
If your arguments are so piss-poor that you have to compare to 1942 Nazis to make any headway, you’re leaving yourself wide open to stupid comparisons back the other direction. Oh, and don’t bother trying to claim you stand on the side of civility ... you’re just as bad as Trump calling fake news proponents “enemies of the people” if you’re going all Godwin’s law. That leaves you with zero room to criticize Trump when you adopt his worst aspects. They heard there were conservatives talking over there yonder and decided to go ruin that for them. What more can you really expect from the usual suspects?
If that’s directed towards me then I’ll save you the trouble and I’ll happily concede to being a far-left, radical commie SJW (I wish I was that cool tbh).
Fact of the matter is that if the far-right was in complete control in every country for another decade there wouldn’t be a future for the human race, because the climate would be damaged beyond recovery. That strikes me as a pressing problem, but fortunately we have luminaries such as Danglars and Sermokola to tell us that the real issue is incivility from the left.
|
Civility is over rated. Politics does not reward civility, especially on the national stage. The one exception to this rule is Mr. Rogers, who we have failed as a nation. We are not the people he wanted us to go up to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
