not to mention, your several questions marks surrounding the word "really" was in response to me not wanting to equate all immigrants with criminals. not open borders.
so you think like trump does, that all immigrants are rapists and murderers?
no, I don't but the ones that are need to be deported asap ! or imprisoned. also, if any person enters a country, any country illegally does that not make them a criminal by definition ?
in your country, yes, it is considered a misdemeanor.
so is public intoxication, which means most of us have committed equal crimes.
LOL !!! so then we agree that every illegal immigrant is a criminal ?........you know I couldn't let that one just slip by. LOL !!!
yes, under US law, they are. who ever said they weren't?
if you think that's what trump was saying, you are sadly mistaken. he said "rapists and murderers". he didn't say "they are all criminals since they are entering our country illegally".
no that's not what I think he's saying and remember his statement about Mexico sending us rapists and murderers he NEVER said all Mexicans are rapists and murderers but Clinton had a hay day with that one and that's probably one of the reasons she lost support from some of the Mexican people...a lie is a lie is a lie in any language.
for hopefully the last time, this is what he said:
QUOTE: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
I don't recall Clinton ever claiming that he said all mexicans are rapists. she only said what he said, that they are ONLY SENDING rapists, murderers, etc.
any American Christian that thinks they would still be a Christian if they were born & raised in Riyadh Saudi Arabia is a fool, there is a 99.8% chance you would be a practicing Muslim
Religion is largely decided by where you live and who you are raised and surrounded by. period. full stop.
That and due to the fact that you stand a real chance of being stoned to death for practicing Christianity in many primarily muslim countries...
any American Christian that thinks they would still be a Christian if they were born & raised in Riyadh Saudi Arabia is a fool, there is a 99.8% chance you would be a practicing Muslim
Religion is largely decided by where you live and who you are raised and surrounded by. period. full stop.
That and due to the fact that you stand a real chance of being stoned to death for practicing Christianity in many primarily muslim countries...
any American Christian that thinks they would still be a Christian if they were born & raised in Riyadh Saudi Arabia is a fool, there is a 99.8% chance you would be a practicing Muslim
Religion is largely decided by where you live and who you are raised and surrounded by. period. full stop.
That and due to the fact that you stand a real chance of being stoned to death for practicing Christianity in many primarily muslim countries...
any American Christian that thinks they would still be a Christian if they were born & raised in Riyadh Saudi Arabia is a fool, there is a 99.8% chance you would be a practicing Muslim
Religion is largely decided by where you live and who you are raised and surrounded by. period. full stop.
That and due to the fact that you stand a real chance of being stoned to death for practicing Christianity in many primarily muslim countries...
any American Christian that thinks they would still be a Christian if they were born & raised in Riyadh Saudi Arabia is a fool, there is a 99.8% chance you would be a practicing Muslim
Religion is largely decided by where you live and who you are raised and surrounded by. period. full stop.
That and due to the fact that you stand a real chance of being stoned to death for practicing Christianity in many primarily muslim countries...
any American Christian that thinks they would still be a Christian if they were born & raised in Riyadh Saudi Arabia is a fool, there is a 99.8% chance you would be a practicing Muslim
Religion is largely decided by where you live and who you are raised and surrounded by. period. full stop.
That and due to the fact that you stand a real chance of being stoned to death for practicing Christianity in many primarily muslim countries...
And when minorities are treated poorly or even killed in the US due to their race or group they belong to you attibute that to what?
Most definitely not the predominant culture or mentality of the US...as it is in many of these places. Usually a lone nutcase or two in the US instead of an acceptable public hanging or stoning as happens in those oppressive countries. You are creating a false equivalency, lol
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
HFD you dislike borders right ? do you enjoy living in Canada without the pesky laws that govern the United States ? or other countries' ? your open border and free reign for the people idea is noble but seriously un-workable....it's a hippy pipe dream and hopefully someday you'll realize open borders will never work.
I think borders are stupid in the philisophical sense. yes, borders are obviously required for economics; countries would collapse without them. But you, and many other americans, think a border means I can't have an opinion, and that's just plain stupid.
not to mention that many americans don't give a sweet fuck about the sovereignty of other nations' borders, but when it comes to their own, it's "GET THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN". it's fundamentally hypocritical.
If that isn't the damned truth, strike me with lightning right now... . . . . . Yep, still here, lightning-free.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
And these are not isolated incidents in those countries, but an acceptable way to deal with non-believers based on their fucked up interpretation of Sharia law...the predominant law of those lands.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not? In fact, Christianity is literally illegal in many Islamic nations...Iran for example.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that have said it's extremely dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that say it's dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
Who said anything about open borders and not vetting? And a theory by defintion is flexible. We also have a large population of people in the US who were born here who have extreme religious ideology. So when they're violent, how much is motivated by ideology of their group, and how much is attributed to them as an individual?
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that say it's dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
Who said anything about open borders and not vetting? And a theory by defintion is flexible. We also have a large population of people in the US who were born here who have extreme religious ideology. So when they're violent, how much is motivated by ideology of their group, and how much is attributed to them as an individual?
I would say "it depends". If the said religion/church is teaching extremist views that violence towards other races or cultures is acceptable then it probably attributes quite a bit. There is no question that some of those cults have caused problems throughout our history. Is that the norm in the US...no. Is that the norm in Syria...or Iran...? There is persecution on the level of genocide of alternative ideologies in some middle eastern countries happening right now due to those extremely predominant violent beliefs. How again are you not drawing false equivalencies here?
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that say it's dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
Who said anything about open borders and not vetting? And a theory by defintion is flexible. We also have a large population of people in the US who were born here who have extreme religious ideology. So when they're violent, how much is motivated by ideology of their group, and how much is attributed to them as an individual?
I would say "it depends". If the said religion/church is teaching extremist views that violence towards other races or cultures is acceptable then it probably attributes quite a bit. There is no question that some of those cults have caused problems throughout our history. Is that the norm in the US...no. Is that the norm in Syria...or Iran...?
So you're saying there's similar cults here as there are in Syria and Iran? As far as extremist views go.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that say it's dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
Who said anything about open borders and not vetting? And a theory by defintion is flexible. We also have a large population of people in the US who were born here who have extreme religious ideology. So when they're violent, how much is motivated by ideology of their group, and how much is attributed to them as an individual?
I would say "it depends". If the said religion/church is teaching extremist views that violence towards other races or cultures is acceptable then it probably attributes quite a bit. There is no question that some of those cults have caused problems throughout our history. Is that the norm in the US...no. Is that the norm in Syria...or Iran...?
So you're saying there's similar cults here as there are in Syria and Iran? As far as extremist views go.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that say it's dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
Who said anything about open borders and not vetting? And a theory by defintion is flexible. We also have a large population of people in the US who were born here who have extreme religious ideology. So when they're violent, how much is motivated by ideology of their group, and how much is attributed to them as an individual?
I would say "it depends". If the said religion/church is teaching extremist views that violence towards other races or cultures is acceptable then it probably attributes quite a bit. There is no question that some of those cults have caused problems throughout our history. Is that the norm in the US...no. Is that the norm in Syria...or Iran...?
So you're saying there's similar cults here as there are in Syria and Iran? As far as extremist views go.
Possibly, but on a much much smaller scale...and on the level of jihadists, not if they can be weeded out. I would say that nearly all of the religious teaching (whatever religion that may be) do not preach the acceptance of violence in the US. I would say the opposite of that is likely true in some middle eastern countries.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that say it's dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
Who said anything about open borders and not vetting? And a theory by defintion is flexible. We also have a large population of people in the US who were born here who have extreme religious ideology. So when they're violent, how much is motivated by ideology of their group, and how much is attributed to them as an individual?
I would say "it depends". If the said religion/church is teaching extremist views that violence towards other races or cultures is acceptable then it probably attributes quite a bit. There is no question that some of those cults have caused problems throughout our history. Is that the norm in the US...no. Is that the norm in Syria...or Iran...?
So you're saying there's similar cults here as there are in Syria and Iran? As far as extremist views go.
Possibly, but on a much much smaller scale...and on the level of jihadists, not if they can be weeded out. I would say that nearly all of the religious teaching (whatever religion that may be) do not preach the acceptance of violence in the US. I would say the opposite of that is likely true in some middle eastern countries.
I'm just trying to sort through the concerns: is it all Muslims from certain countries, all Muslim extemists, certain countries and the broad "culture" in that country, how a religion is taught in a Middle Eastern country, or is it cults in certain countries. Maybe it's cults in any country?
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that say it's dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
Who said anything about open borders and not vetting? And a theory by defintion is flexible. We also have a large population of people in the US who were born here who have extreme religious ideology. So when they're violent, how much is motivated by ideology of their group, and how much is attributed to them as an individual?
I would say "it depends". If the said religion/church is teaching extremist views that violence towards other races or cultures is acceptable then it probably attributes quite a bit. There is no question that some of those cults have caused problems throughout our history. Is that the norm in the US...no. Is that the norm in Syria...or Iran...?
So you're saying there's similar cults here as there are in Syria and Iran? As far as extremist views go.
Possibly, but on a much much smaller scale...and on the level of jihadists, not if they can be weeded out. I would say that nearly all of the religious teaching (whatever religion that may be) do not preach the acceptance of violence in the US. I would say the opposite of that is likely true in some middle eastern countries.
I'm just trying to sort through the concerns: is it all Muslims from certain countries, all Muslim extemists, certain countries and the broad "culture" in that country, how a religion is taught in a Middle Eastern country, or is it cults in certain countries. Maybe it's cults in any country?
Great question. There is no way of completely vetting someone's intentions and whether or not they have a plan to carry out some sick ideological based mission. But the odds of finding someone with that violent ideology are probably greater from certain places than others. My concern is that the more you accept immigrants from certain areas of the world, you raise the odds of some violent extremists slipping through. Do I have a perfect solution to this concern...nope.
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that say it's dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
Who said anything about open borders and not vetting? And a theory by defintion is flexible. We also have a large population of people in the US who were born here who have extreme religious ideology. So when they're violent, how much is motivated by ideology of their group, and how much is attributed to them as an individual?
I would say "it depends". If the said religion/church is teaching extremist views that violence towards other races or cultures is acceptable then it probably attributes quite a bit. There is no question that some of those cults have caused problems throughout our history. Is that the norm in the US...no. Is that the norm in Syria...or Iran...?
So you're saying there's similar cults here as there are in Syria and Iran? As far as extremist views go.
Possibly, but on a much much smaller scale...and on the level of jihadists, not if they can be weeded out. I would say that nearly all of the religious teaching (whatever religion that may be) do not preach the acceptance of violence in the US. I would say the opposite of that is likely true in some middle eastern countries.
I'm just trying to sort through the concerns: is it all Muslims from certain countries, all Muslim extemists, certain countries and the broad "culture" in that country, how a religion is taught in a Middle Eastern country, or is it cults in certain countries. Maybe it's cults in any country?
Great question. There is no way of completely vetting someone's intentions and whether or not they have a plan to carry out some sick ideological based mission. But the odds of finding someone with that violent ideology are probably greater from certain places than others. My concern is that the more you accept immigrants from certain areas of the world
As usual, it's attributed to the "lone nutcase" when something happens in the US, and it's attributes to religion when it happens somewhere we have less contact and knowledge of. It's not about the religion, it's about power, fear and manipulation. The "lone nutcase" in the US is acting under a similar dynamic. Watch as we hear more about federal agents abusing their power and not following the law as they are following the lead of the new administration. Watch as more trump followers kill more people
More false equivalencies...the cultural acceptance of such actions in the US is no where close to what it is in the countries I mentioned. And why single out "Trump followers"? I would argue that MOST of the semi-recent mass shootings and terrorist attacks in the US were not done by "Trump followers" or by anyone that aligned with his beliefs. In fact, MOST of the violence lately has been perpetuated by the other end of the spectrum. And you accuse others of demonizing and profiling...Deplorable!
My point isn't to draw out an equivilancy, it's to comment on how people view what motivates others. In the US, like you pointed out, motives are isolated to the individual making their own individual choice. When it's someone elsewhere, of a different culture/religion, their motivation is applied to the group you assign them to. Most violence in the US is done by white males, so what do you attribute that to?
What do you attribute white male violence too, regardless of the rate?
A predominantly unacceptable form of aggression? Why are you focusing on whites? If whites were the predominant race in Libya and were looking for people to kill based on their religion, then I would contribute the same cultural/religious guiding factors to them. You are once again trying to bring up false equivalencies to defend your loose rhetoric. It's not a race thing, it's a cultural thing in those nations. Is it acceptable for whites (or any other race) to stone women because of how they dress in the US? It's the same cultural/religious aspects that allow for that type of behavior as well in those nations. And it's the very reason many people are not in favor of mass migration from those countries into their neighborhoods.
I'm not using equivalencies or loose rhetoric, I'm making observations of what you wrote and applying it to my own theory that I see elsewhere. It's what you apply people's motivation to. We have a high level of violence in the US, so based on what yoy're saying, I can conclude that violence is culturally acceptable in the US, and when people are violent, they are just responding to cultural norms.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
I do not know who "yoy're" is, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the type of violence that is literally accepted by those cultures/religions. They do not get convicted of murder for stoning women or beheading Christians. You are making stuff up, inferring that I said it, and applying it to your theory/rhetoric. Regardless of where the responsibility resides, it is not accepted in the US and it is there. Acceptance is a major driving force in behavior, is it not?
You're steering it to a US vs "there" discussion, and I am steering it away from that and more towards what motivates an individual. You probably don't have much contact with Muslims, so it's easier to attribute the violence to "those religions". So you don't want "mass migration" from those countries based on fear of the unknown.
And now you've gone from false equivalencies to making assumptions. Anything to fit your solidified "theories". My fear is based on the known. I know a fair share of Muslims that say it's dangerous to not fully vet everyone coming from certain nations due to the large populations of radical/extremists views. I know plenty of military personnel that have experience with the middle eastern shit show. I've also studied my fair share of theology. But how do you fully vet a person? Having an open border for them to cross at freely should they make their way to Mexico is probably not a great method (trying to include a little of the thread topic in here). Sorry everyone for derailing the original conversation!!!
Who said anything about open borders and not vetting? And a theory by defintion is flexible. We also have a large population of people in the US who were born here who have extreme religious ideology. So when they're violent, how much is motivated by ideology of their group, and how much is attributed to them as an individual?
I would say "it depends". If the said religion/church is teaching extremist views that violence towards other races or cultures is acceptable then it probably attributes quite a bit. There is no question that some of those cults have caused problems throughout our history. Is that the norm in the US...no. Is that the norm in Syria...or Iran...?
So you're saying there's similar cults here as there are in Syria and Iran? As far as extremist views go.
Possibly, but on a much much smaller scale...and on the level of jihadists, not if they can be weeded out. I would say that nearly all of the religious teaching (whatever religion that may be) do not preach the acceptance of violence in the US. I would say the opposite of that is likely true in some middle eastern countries.
I'm just trying to sort through the concerns: is it all Muslims from certain countries, all Muslim extemists, certain countries and the broad "culture" in that country, how a religion is taught in a Middle Eastern country, or is it cults in certain countries. Maybe it's cults in any country?
Great question. There is no way of completely vetting someone's intentions and whether or not they have a plan to carry out some sick ideological based mission. But the odds of finding someone with that violent ideology are probably greater from certain places than others. My concern is that the more you accept immigrants from certain areas of the world
Idaho and rural Georgia?
Haha, probably! If someone was migrating from one of those states to some other country...they have every right to vet them accordingly to determine if they could appropriately assimilate to their culture.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
At what point have we met our moral obligation to help poor people?
Right now, for most situations, birth means everything.
Some babies, like us and ours, are born into pleasant circumstances. Others are born into poor circumstances. When we recognize our good fortunes and acknowledge those with misfortunes... we likely won't be so abject to assisting others.
Hoarding massive amounts of wealth earned as a lucky baby on the backs of others is fundamentally wrong in my opinion. We need a more equitable model for wealth distribution that still respects a baby's lottery win- being born to wealth- but allows for babies born unto poor circumstances the opportunity to crawl out of the gutter.
Well said, Thirty.
Some societies do a much better job than others of making things more equitable, at least for those within their society. Not all societies share the "claw myself to the top" mentality of the USA.
Don't forget you're also a citizen of the world, not just a citizen of the USA.
Screw that globalist BS. It isn't my burden to save the world when my own country is the one that always picks up the slack. Sorry, hard to equate anything with this coming from a Canadian. My buddy got stopped at the border on his way to a fishing trip because of a DUI a few years prior. Don't lecture me on immigration.
yep, you're undeserving unless you were born within the confines of that magical line that does't exist in reality!
Sorry bud, I believe in property rights. Or do you leave your front door open each night?
well, I guess I could respond to that if I believed equating immigrants with criminals made a lick of sense.
????? really ?
comprehension problem?
no, just total amazement at your lack of understanding of the real world, this country and all others have fought and maintained borders from the beginning even the native Americans (or so they're called) fought for and killed each other for hunting grounds and living areas and it was always a matter of survival...to maintain a peoples security, your free love, hippy way of thinking is what wiped-out some of the non aggressive tribes and cultures but I'm sure you don't believe that right ? even the hippy generation grew up and understood the means of survival, you really should put that fad away and think in terms of survival yourself...just say'n..
I live in the real world. you live in a world of deluded fear that you have bought from fox news and other right wing sources, coupled with your own experiences that have clouded your judgment into thinking all your countries' woes are the work of immigrants and other people you think wish to do you harm.
your country's economy is partially built around the powers that be maintaining that fear of its people.
no one is saying just let anyone walk anywhere on earth as they please. I NEVER, EVER SAID THAT. But closing the door on people in need goes against what your country (and mine) was founded on. how ironic, since that's all the second ammendment folks blather on about, "our founding fathers/principles" when it comes to gun rights, but forget the "bring us your tired...." when it doesn't suit them.
At what point have we met our moral obligation to help poor people?
Right now, for most situations, birth means everything.
Some babies, like us and ours, are born into pleasant circumstances. Others are born into poor circumstances. When we recognize our good fortunes and acknowledge those with misfortunes... we likely won't be so abject to assisting others.
Hoarding massive amounts of wealth earned as a lucky baby on the backs of others is fundamentally wrong in my opinion. We need a more equitable model for wealth distribution that still respects a baby's lottery win- being born to wealth- but allows for babies born unto poor circumstances the opportunity to crawl out of the gutter.
Well said, Thirty.
Some societies do a much better job than others of making things more equitable, at least for those within their society. Not all societies share the "claw myself to the top" mentality of the USA.
Don't forget you're also a citizen of the world, not just a citizen of the USA.
Screw that globalist BS. It isn't my burden to save the world when my own country is the one that always picks up the slack. Sorry, hard to equate anything with this coming from a Canadian. My buddy got stopped at the border on his way to a fishing trip because of a DUI a few years prior. Don't lecture me on immigration.
yep, you're undeserving unless you were born within the confines of that magical line that does't exist in reality!
Sorry bud, I believe in property rights. Or do you leave your front door open each night?
well, I guess I could respond to that if I believed equating immigrants with criminals made a lick of sense.
????? really ?
comprehension problem?
no, just total amazement at your lack of understanding of the real world, this country and all others have fought and maintained borders from the beginning even the native Americans (or so they're called) fought for and killed each other for hunting grounds and living areas and it was always a matter of survival...to maintain a peoples security, your free love, hippy way of thinking is what wiped-out some of the non aggressive tribes and cultures but I'm sure you don't believe that right ? even the hippy generation grew up and understood the means of survival, you really should put that fad away and think in terms of survival yourself...just say'n..
I live in the real world. you live in a world of deluded fear that you have bought from fox news and other right wing sources, coupled with your own experiences that have clouded your judgment into thinking all your countries' woes are the work of immigrants and other people you think wish to do you harm.
your country's economy is partially built around the powers that be maintaining that fear of its people.
no one is saying just let anyone walk anywhere on earth as they please. I NEVER, EVER SAID THAT. But closing the door on people in need goes against what your country (and mine) was founded on. how ironic, since that's all the second ammendment folks blather on about, "our founding fathers/principles" when it comes to gun rights, but forget the "bring us your tired...." when it doesn't suit them.
you say ' in need ' these terrorist who have shot up a gay bar or a business party etc. were they granted access because they were in need ? I 'll bet the back ground checks where I work is more in depth than a citizenship back ground check...which is what the whole temporary ban is about it wasn't intended to be permanent only to by some time to create a better process of vetting immigrants wanting to come here...why was that a problem ? just about every president before Trump did the same thing, shit Obama did it and every democrat in the country kissed his ass.
You are referring to the shooting in Florida in 2016 correct? You do realize that the guy who shot up the bar in Orlando was born in New York right?
So basing this particular incident as an example of how Trump's ban would have helped prevent this incident is completely incorrect. I mean you are informed with correct information when forming your opinions aren't you?
what a shame.....what does that tell you ? maybe muslim cultures don't belong here ? that maybe all the stories and facts about muslim belief of all who don't believe in alha must die and women are to be used as sexual objects and servants for the male warriors of islam.. but I'm sure you don't believe any of that do you ?
At what point have we met our moral obligation to help poor people?
Right now, for most situations, birth means everything.
Some babies, like us and ours, are born into pleasant circumstances. Others are born into poor circumstances. When we recognize our good fortunes and acknowledge those with misfortunes... we likely won't be so abject to assisting others.
Hoarding massive amounts of wealth earned as a lucky baby on the backs of others is fundamentally wrong in my opinion. We need a more equitable model for wealth distribution that still respects a baby's lottery win- being born to wealth- but allows for babies born unto poor circumstances the opportunity to crawl out of the gutter.
Well said, Thirty.
Some societies do a much better job than others of making things more equitable, at least for those within their society. Not all societies share the "claw myself to the top" mentality of the USA.
Don't forget you're also a citizen of the world, not just a citizen of the USA.
Screw that globalist BS. It isn't my burden to save the world when my own country is the one that always picks up the slack. Sorry, hard to equate anything with this coming from a Canadian. My buddy got stopped at the border on his way to a fishing trip because of a DUI a few years prior. Don't lecture me on immigration.
yep, you're undeserving unless you were born within the confines of that magical line that does't exist in reality!
Sorry bud, I believe in property rights. Or do you leave your front door open each night?
well, I guess I could respond to that if I believed equating immigrants with criminals made a lick of sense.
????? really ?
comprehension problem?
no, just total amazement at your lack of understanding of the real world, this country and all others have fought and maintained borders from the beginning even the native Americans (or so they're called) fought for and killed each other for hunting grounds and living areas and it was always a matter of survival...to maintain a peoples security, your free love, hippy way of thinking is what wiped-out some of the non aggressive tribes and cultures but I'm sure you don't believe that right ? even the hippy generation grew up and understood the means of survival, you really should put that fad away and think in terms of survival yourself...just say'n..
I live in the real world. you live in a world of deluded fear that you have bought from fox news and other right wing sources, coupled with your own experiences that have clouded your judgment into thinking all your countries' woes are the work of immigrants and other people you think wish to do you harm.
your country's economy is partially built around the powers that be maintaining that fear of its people.
no one is saying just let anyone walk anywhere on earth as they please. I NEVER, EVER SAID THAT. But closing the door on people in need goes against what your country (and mine) was founded on. how ironic, since that's all the second ammendment folks blather on about, "our founding fathers/principles" when it comes to gun rights, but forget the "bring us your tired...." when it doesn't suit them.
you say ' in need ' these terrorist who have shot up a gay bar or a business party etc. were they granted access because they were in need ? I 'll bet the back ground checks where I work is more in depth than a citizenship back ground check...which is what the whole temporary ban is about it wasn't intended to be permanent only to by some time to create a better process of vetting immigrants wanting to come here...why was that a problem ? just about every president before Trump did the same thing, shit Obama did it and every democrat in the country kissed his ass.
You are referring to the shooting in Florida in 2016 correct? You do realize that the guy who shot up the bar in Orlando was born in New York right?
So basing this particular incident as an example of how Trump's ban would have helped prevent this incident is completely incorrect. I mean you are informed with correct information when forming your opinions aren't you?
what a shame.....what does that tell you ? maybe muslim cultures don't belong here ? that maybe all the stories and facts about muslim belief of all who don't believe in alha must die and women are to be used as sexual objects and servants for the male warriors of islam.. but I'm sure you don't believe any of that do you ?
Sure, I believe that some Muslim men believe that woman are to be used as sexual objects and servants for men of Islam, just like I believe that some Christian men believe that woman are to be used as sexual objects. Just like I believe that some Jewish men believe that women are to be used as sexual objects. Just like I believe that some atheist men believe that women are to be used as sexual objects. The common factor there is men, not Islam.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
At what point have we met our moral obligation to help poor people?
Right now, for most situations, birth means everything.
Some babies, like us and ours, are born into pleasant circumstances. Others are born into poor circumstances. When we recognize our good fortunes and acknowledge those with misfortunes... we likely won't be so abject to assisting others.
Hoarding massive amounts of wealth earned as a lucky baby on the backs of others is fundamentally wrong in my opinion. We need a more equitable model for wealth distribution that still respects a baby's lottery win- being born to wealth- but allows for babies born unto poor circumstances the opportunity to crawl out of the gutter.
Well said, Thirty.
Some societies do a much better job than others of making things more equitable, at least for those within their society. Not all societies share the "claw myself to the top" mentality of the USA.
Don't forget you're also a citizen of the world, not just a citizen of the USA.
Screw that globalist BS. It isn't my burden to save the world when my own country is the one that always picks up the slack. Sorry, hard to equate anything with this coming from a Canadian. My buddy got stopped at the border on his way to a fishing trip because of a DUI a few years prior. Don't lecture me on immigration.
yep, you're undeserving unless you were born within the confines of that magical line that does't exist in reality!
Sorry bud, I believe in property rights. Or do you leave your front door open each night?
well, I guess I could respond to that if I believed equating immigrants with criminals made a lick of sense.
????? really ?
comprehension problem?
no, just total amazement at your lack of understanding of the real world, this country and all others have fought and maintained borders from the beginning even the native Americans (or so they're called) fought for and killed each other for hunting grounds and living areas and it was always a matter of survival...to maintain a peoples security, your free love, hippy way of thinking is what wiped-out some of the non aggressive tribes and cultures but I'm sure you don't believe that right ? even the hippy generation grew up and understood the means of survival, you really should put that fad away and think in terms of survival yourself...just say'n..
I live in the real world. you live in a world of deluded fear that you have bought from fox news and other right wing sources, coupled with your own experiences that have clouded your judgment into thinking all your countries' woes are the work of immigrants and other people you think wish to do you harm.
your country's economy is partially built around the powers that be maintaining that fear of its people.
no one is saying just let anyone walk anywhere on earth as they please. I NEVER, EVER SAID THAT. But closing the door on people in need goes against what your country (and mine) was founded on. how ironic, since that's all the second ammendment folks blather on about, "our founding fathers/principles" when it comes to gun rights, but forget the "bring us your tired...." when it doesn't suit them.
you say ' in need ' these terrorist who have shot up a gay bar or a business party etc. were they granted access because they were in need ? I 'll bet the back ground checks where I work is more in depth than a citizenship back ground check...which is what the whole temporary ban is about it wasn't intended to be permanent only to by some time to create a better process of vetting immigrants wanting to come here...why was that a problem ? just about every president before Trump did the same thing, shit Obama did it and every democrat in the country kissed his ass.
You are referring to the shooting in Florida in 2016 correct? You do realize that the guy who shot up the bar in Orlando was born in New York right?
So basing this particular incident as an example of how Trump's ban would have helped prevent this incident is completely incorrect. I mean you are informed with correct information when forming your opinions aren't you?
what a shame.....what does that tell you ? maybe muslim cultures don't belong here ? that maybe all the stories and facts about muslim belief of all who don't believe in alha must die and women are to be used as sexual objects and servants for the male warriors of islam.. but I'm sure you don't believe any of that do you ?
Sure, I believe that some Muslim men believe that woman are to be used as sexual objects and servants for men of Islam, just like I believe that some Christian men believe that woman are to be used as sexual objects. Just like I believe that some Jewish men believe that women are to be used as sexual objects. Just like I believe that some atheist men believe that women are to be used as sexual objects. The common factor there is men, not Islam.
always seems to be countered with "Christians" this or Christians that but to be honest about it, Christians are not the ones in question and you really believe that the Christian faith is anywhere near as barbaric as the muslims then you're just making excuses' for a culture that hates you and your infidel ways, if you were to travel to a muslim country and offered them peace and understanding I'd bet you wouldn't make it longer than a few days before your head was chopped off....I hope it's a bet you would not consider, I just can't understand why people like you keep standing up a for cult that thrives on death and devastation of any country it enters.
At what point have we met our moral obligation to help poor people?
Right now, for most situations, birth means everything.
Some babies, like us and ours, are born into pleasant circumstances. Others are born into poor circumstances. When we recognize our good fortunes and acknowledge those with misfortunes... we likely won't be so abject to assisting others.
Hoarding massive amounts of wealth earned as a lucky baby on the backs of others is fundamentally wrong in my opinion. We need a more equitable model for wealth distribution that still respects a baby's lottery win- being born to wealth- but allows for babies born unto poor circumstances the opportunity to crawl out of the gutter.
Well said, Thirty.
Some societies do a much better job than others of making things more equitable, at least for those within their society. Not all societies share the "claw myself to the top" mentality of the USA.
Don't forget you're also a citizen of the world, not just a citizen of the USA.
Screw that globalist BS. It isn't my burden to save the world when my own country is the one that always picks up the slack. Sorry, hard to equate anything with this coming from a Canadian. My buddy got stopped at the border on his way to a fishing trip because of a DUI a few years prior. Don't lecture me on immigration.
yep, you're undeserving unless you were born within the confines of that magical line that does't exist in reality!
Sorry bud, I believe in property rights. Or do you leave your front door open each night?
well, I guess I could respond to that if I believed equating immigrants with criminals made a lick of sense.
????? really ?
comprehension problem?
no, just total amazement at your lack of understanding of the real world, this country and all others have fought and maintained borders from the beginning even the native Americans (or so they're called) fought for and killed each other for hunting grounds and living areas and it was always a matter of survival...to maintain a peoples security, your free love, hippy way of thinking is what wiped-out some of the non aggressive tribes and cultures but I'm sure you don't believe that right ? even the hippy generation grew up and understood the means of survival, you really should put that fad away and think in terms of survival yourself...just say'n..
I live in the real world. you live in a world of deluded fear that you have bought from fox news and other right wing sources, coupled with your own experiences that have clouded your judgment into thinking all your countries' woes are the work of immigrants and other people you think wish to do you harm.
your country's economy is partially built around the powers that be maintaining that fear of its people.
no one is saying just let anyone walk anywhere on earth as they please. I NEVER, EVER SAID THAT. But closing the door on people in need goes against what your country (and mine) was founded on. how ironic, since that's all the second ammendment folks blather on about, "our founding fathers/principles" when it comes to gun rights, but forget the "bring us your tired...." when it doesn't suit them.
you say ' in need ' these terrorist who have shot up a gay bar or a business party etc. were they granted access because they were in need ? I 'll bet the back ground checks where I work is more in depth than a citizenship back ground check...which is what the whole temporary ban is about it wasn't intended to be permanent only to by some time to create a better process of vetting immigrants wanting to come here...why was that a problem ? just about every president before Trump did the same thing, shit Obama did it and every democrat in the country kissed his ass.
You are referring to the shooting in Florida in 2016 correct? You do realize that the guy who shot up the bar in Orlando was born in New York right?
So basing this particular incident as an example of how Trump's ban would have helped prevent this incident is completely incorrect. I mean you are informed with correct information when forming your opinions aren't you?
what a shame.....what does that tell you ? maybe muslim cultures don't belong here ? that maybe all the stories and facts about muslim belief of all who don't believe in alha must die and women are to be used as sexual objects and servants for the male warriors of islam.. but I'm sure you don't believe any of that do you ?
Sure, I believe that some Muslim men believe that woman are to be used as sexual objects and servants for men of Islam, just like I believe that some Christian men believe that woman are to be used as sexual objects. Just like I believe that some Jewish men believe that women are to be used as sexual objects. Just like I believe that some atheist men believe that women are to be used as sexual objects. The common factor there is men, not Islam.
always seems to be countered with "Christians" this or Christians that but to be honest about it, Christians are not the ones in question and you really believe that the Christian faith is anywhere near as barbaric as the muslims then you're just making excuses' for a culture that hates you and your infidel ways, if you were to travel to a muslim country and offered them peace and understanding I'd bet you wouldn't make it longer than a few days before your head was chopped off....I hope it's a bet you would not consider, I just can't understand why people like you keep standing up a for cult that thrives on death and devastation of any country it enters.
OH MY GOD. I AM DYING LAUGHING RIGHT NOW. AT THIS:
if you were to travel to a muslim country and offered them peace and understanding I'd bet you wouldn't make it longer than a few days before your head was chopped off.
At what point have we met our moral obligation to help poor people?
Right now, for most situations, birth means everything.
Some babies, like us and ours, are born into pleasant circumstances. Others are born into poor circumstances. When we recognize our good fortunes and acknowledge those with misfortunes... we likely won't be so abject to assisting others.
Hoarding massive amounts of wealth earned as a lucky baby on the backs of others is fundamentally wrong in my opinion. We need a more equitable model for wealth distribution that still respects a baby's lottery win- being born to wealth- but allows for babies born unto poor circumstances the opportunity to crawl out of the gutter.
Well said, Thirty.
Some societies do a much better job than others of making things more equitable, at least for those within their society. Not all societies share the "claw myself to the top" mentality of the USA.
Don't forget you're also a citizen of the world, not just a citizen of the USA.
Screw that globalist BS. It isn't my burden to save the world when my own country is the one that always picks up the slack. Sorry, hard to equate anything with this coming from a Canadian. My buddy got stopped at the border on his way to a fishing trip because of a DUI a few years prior. Don't lecture me on immigration.
yep, you're undeserving unless you were born within the confines of that magical line that does't exist in reality!
Sorry bud, I believe in property rights. Or do you leave your front door open each night?
well, I guess I could respond to that if I believed equating immigrants with criminals made a lick of sense.
????? really ?
comprehension problem?
no, just total amazement at your lack of understanding of the real world, this country and all others have fought and maintained borders from the beginning even the native Americans (or so they're called) fought for and killed each other for hunting grounds and living areas and it was always a matter of survival...to maintain a peoples security, your free love, hippy way of thinking is what wiped-out some of the non aggressive tribes and cultures but I'm sure you don't believe that right ? even the hippy generation grew up and understood the means of survival, you really should put that fad away and think in terms of survival yourself...just say'n..
I live in the real world. you live in a world of deluded fear that you have bought from fox news and other right wing sources, coupled with your own experiences that have clouded your judgment into thinking all your countries' woes are the work of immigrants and other people you think wish to do you harm.
your country's economy is partially built around the powers that be maintaining that fear of its people.
no one is saying just let anyone walk anywhere on earth as they please. I NEVER, EVER SAID THAT. But closing the door on people in need goes against what your country (and mine) was founded on. how ironic, since that's all the second ammendment folks blather on about, "our founding fathers/principles" when it comes to gun rights, but forget the "bring us your tired...." when it doesn't suit them.
you say ' in need ' these terrorist who have shot up a gay bar or a business party etc. were they granted access because they were in need ? I 'll bet the back ground checks where I work is more in depth than a citizenship back ground check...which is what the whole temporary ban is about it wasn't intended to be permanent only to by some time to create a better process of vetting immigrants wanting to come here...why was that a problem ? just about every president before Trump did the same thing, shit Obama did it and every democrat in the country kissed his ass.
You are referring to the shooting in Florida in 2016 correct? You do realize that the guy who shot up the bar in Orlando was born in New York right?
So basing this particular incident as an example of how Trump's ban would have helped prevent this incident is completely incorrect. I mean you are informed with correct information when forming your opinions aren't you?
what a shame.....what does that tell you ? maybe muslim cultures don't belong here ? that maybe all the stories and facts about muslim belief of all who don't believe in alha must die and women are to be used as sexual objects and servants for the male warriors of islam.. but I'm sure you don't believe any of that do you ?
Sure, I believe that some Muslim men believe that woman are to be used as sexual objects and servants for men of Islam, just like I believe that some Christian men believe that woman are to be used as sexual objects. Just like I believe that some Jewish men believe that women are to be used as sexual objects. Just like I believe that some atheist men believe that women are to be used as sexual objects. The common factor there is men, not Islam.
always seems to be countered with "Christians" this or Christians that but to be honest about it, Christians are not the ones in question and you really believe that the Christian faith is anywhere near as barbaric as the muslims then you're just making excuses' for a culture that hates you and your infidel ways, if you were to travel to a muslim country and offered them peace and understanding I'd bet you wouldn't make it longer than a few days before your head was chopped off....I hope it's a bet you would not consider, I just can't understand why people like you keep standing up a for cult that thrives on death and devastation of any country it enters.
I've been to a few Muslim majority countries, and somehow managed to keep my head.
Comments
Mexico isn't 'sending its people'.
I think he's watched Scarface too much.
.
.
.
.
.
Yep, still here, lightning-free.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/02/sally-kohn/sally-kohn-white-men-69-percent-arrested-violent/
And these are not isolated incidents in those countries, but an acceptable way to deal with non-believers based on their fucked up interpretation of Sharia law...the predominant law of those lands.
My point on race is that when someone is a similar race that commits crimes, you start to place responsibilty on the individual. When of a different race, responsibilty expands to other things, like culture and religion. And like you said, you don't want to import that. Because, you know, all those Pakistani immigrants that are stoning women here.
but I'm sure you don't believe any of that do you ?
if you were to travel to a muslim country and offered them peace and understanding I'd bet you wouldn't make it longer than a few days before your head was chopped off.
FUNNY. AND INCREDIBLY SAD.
www.headstonesband.com
Also, you completely missed often's point.
Wait, why am I wasting my time....I know better.