Lurker > _RETS_

"Women's rights! Rape culture! Stay out of my body!"

"We are justified in forcing you to have sex with gay men who haven't gotten recent test results back otherwise we are justified in bullying you into suicide!"

Weird how the same group says both things.

I knocked out 30 mcnugs Monday night and 50 Wendy's nugs last night. Wanted to see if I could. I would much rather have that quantity of Mcnuggets than Wendy's.

During Thursday night football at some point

Vaati_Reborn posted...

I never heard of this before but two guys just knocked on my front door like 5 minutes apart from each other trying to sell meat. I'm so confused

Selling meat door to door was my first sales job

I would love to see an animal perpetrate a drive by. It would be impressive for several reasons:

1) The fact they are driving at all

2) The fact that they can determine the right speed at which to drive to both ensure accuracy but not be overly suspicious too soon

3) The fact that they are handling weapons at all

4) The mental acuity necessary to not only have a grudge against someone, but to know that a driveway has both the element of surprise to increase efficacy and means of immediate getaway to avoid repercussion

Wat Roy Moore the pedo whore has actually done is paint a picture in which evolution is extremely impressive and something we can all admire.

Balrog0 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Arabs stayed in the Israeli region because the Jews actually improved the country and developed a viable economy

yeah, jerusalem isn't important to islam or anything

cmon man

If they have no rightful claim to it does its importance to them matter at all?

RebelElite791 posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Bill Clinton also abused his position of authority to sexually assault women. But the rules don't apply to Democrats.

Franken? Conyers?

Meanwhile Trump? Moore?

God you're such a fucking hack. Pity the poor individuals who have a loon like you as their doctor someday

To be fair, democrats wouldn't have had such a reaction to Franken and Conyers had Moore and Trump not also been accused of things. It's an effort to seize the moral high ground and appear more virtuous, it isn't being done because it's the right thing.

Got it. Thank you for the clarification

How is this any different than donating canned food to relief organizations when donating funds they can allocate to changing needs instead would be more beneficial? Funds can be used for any needs that arise whereas canned goods can only be used for a single purpose.

Giving VA freedom to allocate the money to address various needs as they arise vs. having to use the money for a specific purpose doesn't seem so outrageous. Especially when it would be required that they show they are making progress with certain issues.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

And here ya go:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/veterans-affairs-homeless-vets-program_us_5a28fb8fe4b03ece03001ee9

Facing swift and stiff backlash from lawmakers and activists, the Department of Veterans Affairs has reportedly backtracked on a decision to slash funding for a successful program that helps provide housing to homeless veterans.

Politico first reported on Wednesday that the VA was planning to essentially end a $460 million program that supports veterans looking for permanent housing. The program, known as HUD-VASH, provides vets with case management and clinical services from the VA and rental assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The VAs plan had been to funnel money allocated for the program to local VA hospitals to use however they saw fit. The hospitals only had to show they were dealing with homelessness in some way, Politico reported.

VA officials reportedly shared news of the plan with advocates and state officials in a Friday call but anger exploded, said Politico. Advocates accused the VA of putting at risk the lives of men and women whove served this country.

Hours after Politicos report was published on Wednesday, The Washington Post revealed that the VA appeared to be second-guessing its decision, first described in an internal VA memo circulated in September.

VA Secretary David Shulkin said in a statement to the Post that there will be absolutely no change in the funding to support our homeless programs.

Over the next six months, I will solicit input from our local VA leaders and external stakeholders on how best to target our funding to the geographical areas that need it most, Shulkin said.

The reversal came after a torrent of criticism from advocates and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

The VA is taking its foot off the pedal, Leon Winston, an executive at Swords to Plowshares, an organization that supports homeless vets in San Francisco, told Politico this week.

In November, all members of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on military construction, veterans affairs and related agencies signed a letter, shared online by the Post, strongly urging to VA to pause any action on its plan so that its intention, consequences and implementation could be better understood.

The shift [of funds] could have tremendous unintended consequences, the senators cautioned.

Even former first daughter Chelsea Clinton chimed in this week to criticize the proposal

HUD-VASH is the largest homeless veteran housing program in the country. Since 2008, more than 111,000 homeless veterans have found permanent housing thanks to the program, according to a 2017 report compiled by the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans.

Nearly 40,000 veterans experiencing homelessness on any given night and HUD-VASH plays a big role in ending veteran homelessness and decreasing that number, especially for the chronically homeless, Randy Brown, a spokesman for the organization, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last month.

So yeah, @The_Admiral @_RETS_ that didn't take long. It was such a failing idea they were going to move upwards of $460 million to VA hospitals, but it wasn't enough of a failing idea - "proven with raw data" (/sarcasm) to support being annexed, for them to power through with it amid all the backlash.

A small victory for those who spoke out against this garbage.

Them responding to outrage doesn't mean anything. Relenting to public outrage, whether justified or not, is common. Nothing about this changes my point, it just shows that enough people were immediately outraged to make pursuing a decision, right or wrong, not worth it.

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

Yeah, no, this is Trump we're talking about here, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the worst and react accordingly.

No it isn't. That is you falling for media narrative and having already resigned yourself to outrage no matter what. That is an unintelligent way to look at issues. Certain issues, like gay marriage and abortion rights for example, there is enough information to immediately oppose decisions against them. Other issues, not so much.

It's almost like every issue is different with its own nuances and reaction to them should be adjusted accordingly.

You're not being objective, just apologist.

If you want to be *that* goddamn naive/delusional and keep slurping the orange kool-aid, that's your fucking problem, but I know better than to trust that clown or his administration.

I'm not asking you to trust anything. I am asking that you reserve your outrage until it's proven to be justified. Immediate outrage seldom is, especially when information is filtered through so many layers of bullshit.

I have nothing to be an apologist for. I have no dog in the fight. It is not naive to wait for outcomes to happen before I decide I am outraged by what I assume the outcomes will be. It is sensible. I would think the same of any administration with most issues.

Again, if Trump pushed for laws banning gay marriage or criminalizing abortion, I would immediately oppose. There is nothing apologist about that.

TheVipaGTS posted...

No were told the outcome is the same because once the outcome comes...its the same.

Nope. Many issues are overblown and misrepresented, just like they were under Obama by the right, which distorts the perception of the outcome.

The outcomes for situations that are not the same cannot all be the same.

TheVipaGTS posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

Yeah, no, this is Trump we're talking about here, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the worst and react accordingly.

No it isn't. That is you falling for media narrative and having already resigned yourself to outrage no matter what. That is an unintelligent way to look at issues. Certain issues, like gay marriage and abortion rights for example, there is enough information to immediately oppose decisions against them. Other issues, not so much.

It's almost like every issue is different with its own nuances and reaction to them should be adjusted accordingly.

Every issue is different, but when the outcome tends to always be the same with Trump its not absurd at this point to assume a certain way. When is the benefit of the doubt going stop and actual questions about what hes doing going to start? Hes given us no reason to believe itll definitely be different this time!...

You are told the outcomes are the same because every article on the internet immediately bitches about every decision like it's the end of the world. Conservative media I'm sure did the same with Obama. Attacking decisions simply because the opposition made them. It is unnecessary, counterproductive, rift-driving, and discourages critical thinking on individual issues.

The Jerusalem decision is a good example. Had Obama made that call, the left would praise, the right would be outraged, simply because the decision came from the other side of the aisle.

It is foolish to pre-determine that decisions are made just to be evil. That applies to the right or left and anyone in between. Again, the expectation of people not jumping to immediate outrage with everything isn't an unreasonable expectation to have.

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

Yeah, no, this is Trump we're talking about here, it's perfectly reasonable to assume the worst and react accordingly.

No it isn't. That is you falling for media narrative and having already resigned yourself to outrage no matter what. That is an unintelligent way to look at issues. Certain issues, like gay marriage and abortion rights for example, there is enough information to immediately oppose decisions against them. Other issues, not so much.

It's almost like every issue is different with its own nuances and reaction to them should be adjusted accordingly.

dave_is_slick posted...

_RETS_ posted...

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

I was half joking when I said give him a chance, I didn't think the cultists actually used it...

"Cultist" My opinion applies to anyone in positions of decision-making.

There are several steps that should be taken before jumping to outrage. Look objectively at the reasons for and against, look at the efficacy of the current policy, let results of the new policy take shape, and be outraged or not based on the outcome.

It is unreasonable to look at it any other way. To suggest otherwise is you forming personal opinions based solely on being anti-Trump.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

_RETS_ posted...

_OujiDoza_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...
They literally told the hospitals - that have enough issues as is "here, take this extra funding, and while you're at it find homes for these people in your spare time."

It's not up to hospitals to find homes for people, fucking Christ.

Seriously ill vets don't apply to that scenario as Addy tried to suggest because hospitals at the very least should be equipped to deal with those situations, not full-on housing for capable but displaced individuals. Gimmie a fucking break.

So instead of waiting to see the results of a decision made by people much better equipped to evaluate the situation, you hop right onto the outrage ban wagon. If that's how you want to live your life every day, that's on you.

If the decision proves to be a disaster, shit on it then. But if it doesn't, your outrage should embarrass you.

...Are you seriously suggesting we should keep giving the Trump administration the benefit of a doubt? When it comes to the down-trodden no less?

Seems about right.

This is what it looks like when "waiting for the facts" is used for convenience.

Don't attribute Trump's inconsistent standards of waiting for facts to me. Waiting for facts and not jumping to conclusions is always a good thing.

I'm suggesting issues should be looked at from multiple perspectives beyond the one headlines try to force on you and time should be given to determine the efficacy of decisions instead of defaulting to immediate outrage based off media-fed assumptions. That isn't an unreasonable expectation.

How many times over the last year has immediate outrage been proven to be overblown?

I'm no Trump fan. He is a ridiculous character, a horrible speaker, has very little self control when it comes to making situations worse from his twitter use, etc, but regardless of who is making decisions they should still be looked at objectively and given time to prove to be successes or failures.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...
They literally told the hospitals - that have enough issues as is "here, take this extra funding, and while you're at it find homes for these people in your spare time."

It's not up to hospitals to find homes for people, fucking Christ.

Seriously ill vets don't apply to that scenario as Addy tried to suggest because hospitals at the very least should be equipped to deal with those situations, not full-on housing for capable but displaced individuals. Gimmie a fucking break.

So instead of waiting to see the results of a decision made by people much better equipped to evaluate the situation, you hop right onto the outrage ban wagon. If that's how you want to live your life every day, that's on you.

If the decision proves to be a disaster, shit on it then. But if it doesn't, your outrage should embarrass you.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

_RETS_ posted...

If you were paying for a job to be done, but that job wasn't getting done or the money was being used inefficiently, would you keep paying for it or seek more effective alternatives? That's what I thought.

You would look into WHY the program wasn't working - about how much rhyme or reason do you suppose was put into why the housing initiative wasn't working? Knowing this admin. I doubt much.

Furthermore I ask again, what happens to the homeless that still aren't getting proper attention? If the initiative wasn't working and the money has now shifted, where does that put them? The VA was in shambles to begin with and not being properly addressed - this has been known for some time. The ONLY reason more funds have been put into it just now is because people were starting to finally speak out about how much of a dumpster our VA hospitals were. But they didn't shut it down and shift the money, they decided on putting in more funds to try and improve.

Where do the homeless that don't fall into the category of needing medical care go? That's what I thought, you goober.

You are making a lot of assumptions. My point is you need to not just read a headline and decide a decision is evil without assuming "because of the administration" that the decision was made just to be evil and take money from homeless people.

You have no idea whether or not the issue has been analyzed and evaluated, you are just assuming it hasn't because you let yourself get riled up by headlines.

Not every problem is solved by throwing more money at it. Sometimes looking for new ways to spend that money for a more effective approach is necessary.

_OujiDoza_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

The program was not effective because half the vets have medical problems that are not being treated. So yes, it is a medical issue.

And where does that put the other half, hmmmm?

Reallocating the money to another program still pushed out a large amount of homeless vets that weren't getting helped properly to begin with, and after approving an astronomical military budget you're telling me it's not a bad look to cut spending to the folks that serve? Fuck outta here.

The half that would have benefited from housing can't now just all pack into the damn hospital to take up residency - especially if they don't have a medical issue that needs to be addressed. This is the government failing the very people they parade around to get votes/legislation.

Painting these decisions as "cutting funding to veterans/children/disabled/environment etc" is dishonest and intentionally misleading. If programs are being funded that aren't actually fulfilling the purpose they are meant to do, then reallocation of the money is necessary even if "cutting funding to the Make Everyone Happy programs" sounds like a damning headline.

If you were paying for a job to be done, but that job wasn't getting done or the money was being used inefficiently, would you keep paying for it or seek more effective alternatives? That's what I thought.

Antifar posted...

A Democrat will replace Franken. And opponents will no longer be able to point to him as evidence of Democratic hypocrisy

Roy Moore is a piece of shit and shouldn't be running, but let's not pretend Democrats would still be calling for Franken to step down if the Moore situation didn't exist.

They are right to condemn Moore and Franken, but not because it's right. It's so they can claim moral superiority.

mario2000 posted...

Then why did Obama include them on a list for travel restriction?

Because they are responsible for the numerous terror attacks we have experienced within recent ye-oh wait.

I haven't said at all that black people are more predisposed to violent crimes. I said they are statistically likelier. Pointing that out to counter your white violence narrative is not racist, it is honest.

The fact that you still think it was a "white violence narrative" says everything.

poop

pee

Why else would you use the relatively infrequent mass shootings to make your point then? And then go on to suggest whites commit most of them? What was your goal? You can say it was to illustrate the high level of violence here in the US to deconstruct your "peaceful paradise" straw man, but then you would have used an actual source of frequent and deadly violence. But you didn't because you are dishonest.

I'm tired of trying to educate a failed abortion. Have a good night bro

mario2000 posted...

Look At FBI crime stats. Black males are likeliest to commit violent crime and are responsible for more of it per their population than any other demographic. It isnt racist to tell you crime stats.

It is when you use stats to try and insinuate that black people are more predisposed to commit crime.

There are tons of terrorist attacks happening there. I am perfectly okay with optimizing, in any way, processes that prevent all the terrorism there from making its way here. The opposite of that opinion is simply wrong.

Tell me how we can get more optimized than "zero terrorist attacks".

No one is being forced to stay in those countries unless the USA is the only country they can go to. If the ME is as amazing as you seem to think it is, why can't they go to other neighboring countries?

Ah, the NIMBY approach.

As much as you want it to be, it is not our responsibility to let immigrants pour into our country unchecked at the risk of our own citizens. No country should have that expectation insisted upon them.

They are not coming in unchecked. There are already checks in place, and such checks have successfully prevented terror attacks from occurring on our soil.

nonsense

ok

Then why did Obama include them on a list for travel restriction?

I haven't said at all that black people are more predisposed to violent crimes. I said they are statistically likelier. Pointing that out to counter your white violence narrative is not racist, it is honest.

You continue to have no valid point, and have yet to display any sort of mental acuity.

P4wn4g3 posted...

Mario stop arguing with these alt right morons. They accepted the fact that they are always wrong long ago and try to get by selling out their values. No reason to take them seriously, you've made your point.

"Every argument i have has been destroyed so i might as well play the alt right/racist/trumpanzee card, that will prove my points for me."

Feel free to actually make a point, until then shut the fuck up.

mario2000 posted...

Please, explain where there is racism. Please. Is it racist of me to give you facts? Is anything you don't like or that doesn't fit your narrative racist?

Then link me to the peer-reviewed study that proves black people are more predisposed to commit crime.

I would say a third world country where gays are regularly executed, women have no rights, rape victims are executed for being rape victims, no one has any meaningful quality of life, and people regularly get blown up by the hundreds qualifies as a s*** hole. If you disagree, then I expect a picture of your boarding pass for your flight to any of the countries on the list.

And you're perfectly fine with forcing people to stay in those terrible countries because..why, again?

To your "point" of why the number hasn't increased, you may walk across the street 10 times without looking and not get hit by a car, that doesn't mean you shouldn't review your approach. The current process may very well be working "fine" but if steps can be taken to optimize it they should be.

I don't know how much more optimized you can get than "zero terrorist attacks".

Look At FBI crime stats. Black males are likeliest to commit violent crime and are responsible for more of it per their population than any other demographic. It isnt racist to tell you crime stats.

There are tons of terrorist attacks happening there. I am perfectly okay with optimizing, in any way, processes that prevent all the terrorism there from making its way here. The opposite of that opinion is simply wrong.

No one is being forced to stay in those countries unless the USA is the only country they can go to. If the ME is as amazing as you seem to think it is, why can't they go to other neighboring countries?

As much as you want it to be, it is not our responsibility to let immigrants pour into our country unchecked at the risk of our own citizens. No country should have that expectation insisted upon them.

But again, you don't actually believe anything you're saying and didn't form your own thoughts on it. You watch some CNN and read Salon and regurgitate the liberal bullshit that is shoveled down your throat.

mario2000 posted...

All of that is inference on your part. My belief lies with the facts. Fact, blacks are likelier to perpetrate violent crime. Fact, whites are actually underrepresented in mass shootings (per your own stats), with or without gang violence factored in. So WHY would you use mass shootings to make your point of high levels of violence? You did it to b**** about white males.

Nope. We've been over this numerous times. Wipe the sleepies from your eyes, dig those racist beliefs out of your brain, and go back and read the conversation again.

And saying the ME is full of s*** hole countries is not dog whistling anything. It is a fact. There is more violence in that region than anywhere in the world and there is no excuse for it. Or are you denying the extremely common occurrence of attacks that claim hundreds of lives?

Then define the term "shithole country" and outline the criteria one needs to meet in order to receive the definition.

Again though, your own words defeat your point. If you want to start your tally on September 12, 2001 (which you do in order to stay consistent with your dishonesty)

ok

then we have not had any major terrorist attacks from immigrants, which is great. So WHY THE f*** would we want to increase our chances of that number going from negligible to significant by bringing in people unchecked from countries considered high risk that have no meaningful method of ensuring that won't happen?

So why hasn't that number increased now? Or 5 years ago? Or any time during the last few decades? Could it be....that our current processes are doing the job just fine?

What you are wanting increases the likelihood of a foreign attack on our soil. So what is the solution? Making sure those who come in are not likely to perpetrate that. How is that accomplished? Through cooperation with countries that can monitor and account for their citizens.

Which..is...what...we are already doing. And have been doing without a pointless travel ban, which would hurt more innocent people than it would help.

See? Wasn't that easy? My girlfriend works with special needs kids, so I changed up my approach and went step by step like she does so maybe you can start to understand.

Yes, you seem to be quite familiar with this approach. Your girlfriend mentors you very well.

Please, explain where there is racism. Please. Is it racist of me to give you facts? Is anything you don't like or that doesn't fit your narrative racist?

I would say a third world country where gays are regularly executed, women have no rights, rape victims are executed for being rape victims, no one has any meaningful quality of life, and people regularly get blown up by the hundreds qualifies as a shit hole. If you disagree, then I expect a picture of your boarding pass for your flight to any of the countries on the list.

To your "point" of why the number hasn't increased, you may walk across the street 10 times without looking and not get hit by a car, that doesn't mean you shouldn't review your approach. The current process may very well be working "fine" but if steps can be taken to optimize it they should be.

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Slow it down Rets, that's too much info for him to process. Try breaking it down in separate sentences with pictures attached to each of them.

I'm going to have to stop using words altogether and just post drawings.

mario2000 posted...

I have not once equated Muslims with violence.

Except for the part where you literally did, and your constant dogwhistling, your word choice and tone, the fact that you got super jimmy-rustled when you perceived me to be talking about white violence instead of minority violence. It's pretty easy to see where your beliefs lie.

I said there needs to be processes of distinction between Muslims (or anyone else) with ill-will and those without. I agreed the majority are peaceful and the minority is the issue (and the reason for the necessity of review) and said twice that I would prefer peaceful people come and violent people not.

We have not suffered a major terrorist...actually forget it.

But you've got Don Lemon's nut sack covering your eyes apparently and missed all that.

ok

All of that is inference on your part. My belief lies with the facts. Fact, blacks are likelier to perpetrate violent crime. Fact, whites are actually underrepresented in mass shootings (per your own stats), with or without gang violence factored in. So WHY would you use mass shootings to make your point of high levels of violence? You did it to bitch about white males.

And saying the ME is full of shit hole countries is not dog whistling anything. It is a fact. There is more violence in that region than anywhere in the world and there is no excuse for it. Or are you denying the extremely common occurrence of attacks that claim hundreds of lives?

Again though, your own words defeat your point. If you want to start your tally on September 12, 2001 (which you do in order to stay consistent with your dishonesty), then we have not had any major terrorist attacks from immigrants, which is great. So WHY THE FUCK would we want to increase our chances of that number going from negligible to significant by bringing in people unchecked from countries considered high risk that have no meaningful method of ensuring that won't happen?

What you are wanting increases the likelihood of a foreign attack on our soil. So what is the solution? Making sure those who come in are not likely to perpetrate that. How is that accomplished? Through cooperation with countries that can monitor and account for their citizens.

See? Wasn't that easy? My girlfriend works with special needs kids, so I changed up my approach and went step by step like she does so maybe you can start to understand.

mario2000 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

mario2000 posted...

Nah, I've presented all my legitimate arguments. You just refuse to accept them.

I have dismantled, point by point, every argument you have presented. At no point in this entire thread have you had anything resembling a legitimate point that hasn't been easily countered (using your own links and stats, no less) other than your pedantry over "import" which wasn't even used how you said it was, so you failed at that too.

You are simply too stupid to know what you don't know and too blinded by partisan ignorance to care.

So this is the point where you melt down and start screeching "NO I WON!!!!" and start hurling your silly little insults and meaningless labels.

Predictable.

Yawn.

I haven't melted down. I've provided you with clear and accurate counter points to your moronic bullshit. I will continue to insult you amidst all that because people like you deserve to be insulted.

mario2000 posted...

Nah, I've presented all my legitimate arguments. You just refuse to accept them.

I was referring to importing issues (specifically violence) which is more abstract and not synonymous with importing refugees

boring backpedal, especially when you've previously equated Muslims with violence

which you I suppose unwittingly equated with violence.

boring projection

you're a boring person

I have not once equated Muslims with violence. I said there needs to be processes of distinction between Muslims (or anyone else) with ill-will and those without. I agreed the majority are peaceful and the minority is the issue (and the reason for the necessity of review) and said twice that I would prefer peaceful people come and violent people not.

But you've got Don Lemon's nut sack covering your eyes apparently and missed all that.

mario2000 posted...

Nah, I've presented all my legitimate arguments. You just refuse to accept them.

I have dismantled, point by point, every argument you have presented. At no point in this entire thread have you had anything resembling a legitimate point that hasn't been easily countered (using your own links and stats, no less) other than your pedantry over "import" which wasn't even used how you said it was, so you failed at that too.

You are simply too stupid to know what you don't know and too blinded by partisan ignorance to care.

mario2000 posted...

hey, let's pull up the full list why don't we?

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/deport/antonyms

go ahead and ctrl+f "import"

also side note, googling "import refugees" brings up sites like Breitbart and DailyWire

hmmmmmmmmm~

You being pedantic about word usage is the result of you having no legitimate arguments in any other regard ITT.

And I wasn't referring to importing people, I was referring to importing issues (specifically violence) which is more abstract and not synonymous with importing refugees, which you I suppose unwittingly equated with violence.

mario2000 posted...

For a bunch of guys who love to tout "honesty" and "accuracy" you sure need work on your grammar skills. :o

I would prefer honesty and accuracy in terms of argument, both of which you lack.

mario2000 posted...

Also please stop using the word "import" when talking about refugees or immigrants. You import cargo. Using it in reference to people is dehumanizing.

I'll use whatever word I want and won't be policed by a virtue signaling SJW projecting their own racist inference onto an innocuous word usage.

mario2000 posted...

Yes, WE have laws to prevent it, but they don't do anything if other countries don't have enough information to share. This also shouldn't be very hard for you to understand, yet it is.

Well if these other countries don't have enough information to share, then a temporary travel ban isn't going to do shit about that, now is it?

It is also very interesting that you choose to start your tally on September 12, 2001. But again, if we already have our own issues, why would we not want to exhaust measures to ensure we are not actively importing more issues? If only we could work with other countries to establish ways to make sure good people are coming in and bad people are not....

Tell me how we decide whether or not someone's a terrorist. Do we ask them? Because they're just going to lie about that. Do we go "well they came from this country/are of this religion which has terrorists so that means this person is probably a terrorist"? Because that's discrimination and is unconstitutional.

Here's a hint.... universal enforcement of policies increases their efficacy. Everything we do doesn't matter if other countries are not also actively participating in monitoring citizens.

Well obviously. We are already doing our job by having our laws in place to prevent criminals from entering our country. That is the most we can possibly do without infringing on human rights laws or breaking our own constitution.

partisan hackery

Translation: "I'm getting owned hard and gonna start throwing out random buzzwords in hopes that I stop getting owned."

Literally no one reading this would interpret our interactions any other way than you getting completely dismantled every time you post, by myself and anyone else who has responded to you.

A temporary travel ban helps because it allows time (during which no one, good or BAD is permitted to enter) to review other countries means of cooperating with us to ensure safety of our citizens, safety of their citizens, and insurance against violence being transferred from one country to another.

And President's reserve the right to restrict travel from places. Not everyone in those countries is Muslim and not every Muslim country is on the list. So there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

And for the 4th time, you determine someone's likelihood of committing violence by background checks, reviews of affiliations, etc. Things that the countries on the list DO NOT DO in any meaningful way, so until they can it is prudent to restrict travel.

How old are you? If you are at least in your 20s you are far too old to be so god damn dumb.

mario2000 posted...

It called for restricted travel. The current ban is temporary in order review processes of countries identified (and selected for restricted travel) by the previous administration. Temporary. Temporary. Want me to repeat it again?

No, it's a knee-jerk reaction to appease Trump's xenophobic fear-mongering voter base. All of the terrorist attacks we have suffered since 9/11 have been committed by American-born citizens. And just because it's temporary doesn't make it any more justified. We already have laws in place to prevent violent criminals from entering our country.

People should be allowed to flee them, ONCE PROCESSES ARE IN PLACE TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN AND WHO SHOULDN'T.

"Hey we know you're probably gonna be murdered if you don't leave your country but you gotta wait a few months because you might be a terrorist yourself."

Jesus f***ing christ, I would say you have a rock for a head but that would be an insult to the entire field of geology.

It's easy to tell when someone's been backed into a corner when they start throwing out low-grade insults like this. :3c

Yes, WE have laws to prevent it, but they don't do anything if other countries don't have enough information to share. This also shouldn't be very hard for you to understand, yet it is.

It is also very interesting that you choose to start your tally on September 12, 2001. But again, if we already have our own issues, why would we not want to exhaust measures to ensure we are not actively importing more issues? If only we could work with other countries to establish ways to make sure good people are coming in and bad people are not....

Here's a hint.... universal enforcement of policies increases their efficacy. Everything we do doesn't matter if other countries are not also actively participating in monitoring citizens.

Read that line a million times and try to separate yourself from your partisan hackery. You will come out of that process a little more honest and have at least a semblance of intelligence.

mario2000 posted...

Was Obama also not wanting to piss off oil buddies when he didn't add them to the list? Or are you just a partisan hack?

"but obawwwwma"

And the reason those particular countries are on the list is specifically because the rampant lawlessness and lack of accountability.

So if these places are so awful, why should we not allow people to flee them?

You can keep arguing, but you embarrass yourself more every time you post.

Is that your conscience speaking? It's so loud I can hear it from here.

From your own link:

"The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they cant use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.

The law was soon expanded by Obamas Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agencys announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law."

keep losing you clown

.....You DO realize that that is not a travel BAN, right? You know, the thing that Trump is trying to do? Our current president? The guy in power right now? Maybe you should actually try reading what you're trying to own me with.

It called for restricted travel. The current ban is temporary in order review processes of countries identified (and selected for restricted travel) by the previous administration. Temporary. Temporary. Want me to repeat it again?

People should be allowed to flee them, ONCE PROCESSES ARE IN PLACE TO DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN AND WHO SHOULDN'T.

Jesus fucking christ, I would say you have a rock for a head but that would be an insult to the entire field of geology.

pizz posted...
It's about time rednecks became ashamed of themselves.

I bet you are also quick to point out that liberal California produces food for the whole country, aren't you?

mario2000 posted...

There are measures in place in regards to cooperative countries that have means of monitoring their citizens.... how else would the USA know? We don't monitor the world, it is the responsibility of the home country to account for their citizens so that information for the purposes of vetting can be shared. These countries lack that.

How do you know that they lack that? Which countries specifically are lacking? What makes you believe that a country, any country, would not account for its citizens?

It is a travel ban list the Obama administration came up with.... you can't be serious.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/

They were identified as "countries of concern", not "countries to ban from travel to the US". Trump is the one pushing the country of concern list through as an actual travel ban list. He has had all the time, power, and authority to add Saudi Arabia to the list, and yet he's giving them a pass. I can only assume that he doesn't want to piss off his oil buddies.

Was Obama also not wanting to piss off oil buddies when he didn't add them to the list? Or are you just a partisan hack?

And the reason those particular countries are on the list is specifically because the rampant lawlessness and lack of accountability.

You can keep arguing, but you embarrass yourself more every time you post.

From your own link:

"The Obama-signed law contains provisions that restrict travel to the United States for people who lived in or visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since March 2011. They must have a visa to enter the United States; they cant use what is known as the Visa Waiver Program, which allows 90-day U.S. visits to other foreign visitors.

The law was soon expanded by Obamas Department of Homeland Security to cover Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. They were identified in the agencys announcement as "countries of concern," a phrase used in the law."

keep losing you clown

mario2000 posted...

Yes, the majority are peaceful. Measures should be in place to identify and bar the violent minority. This isn't difficult to understand but you are really struggling for some reason.

Would now be a bad time to reveal to you that we already have measures in place to keep violent or otherwise criminal people out?

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-that-make-us-visa-green-card-applicants-inadmissible.html

If you want Saudi Arabia on the list (a country who has measures for accounting for their citizens) ask why Obama didn't include them on his list.

Now you've gone from "broken record" to outright "living in a different reality". Unless Trump has actually been Obama wearing an oompa loompa costume this whole time.

And again, you brought up mass shootings to compare violence. But you chose a relatively low-frequency form of violence to make the comparison in an effort to show how violent America is. You did this because you THOUGHT it could easily be painted as white violence (which it cant), whereas if you really wanted to illustrate high rates of violence in the USA you would have used gang violence. But you didn't because then you wouldn't be able to virtue signal about racism.

Nope. That's an assumption you made.

You are transparent as s***, but that's common with people who are intellectually dishonest and deficient.

Says the guy who thinks Obama is still president.

There are measures in place in regards to cooperative countries that have means of monitoring their citizens.... how else would the USA know? We don't monitor the world, it is the responsibility of the home country to account for their citizens so that information for the purposes of vetting can be shared. These countries lack that.

It is a travel ban list the Obama administration came up with.... you can't be serious.

mario2000 posted...

So there should be no gun control measures until there is mind reading right?

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that guns are tools designed with the intent to end lives.

And I dont care if Muslims or anyone else comes to the country legally as long as they are peaceful. Couldn't have been any clearer.

Fun fact: The majority of human beings are peaceful by default. Most people DON'T want to cause violence or misfortune.

And if you need it reiterated, it is not a ban based on religion. Because the countries on the list are a fraction of majority Muslim countries. It is a ban of countries that have been determined (by a previous administration, mind you) to be likelier to produce terrorism due to unchecked citizens.

So why isn't Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive fundamentalist Islamic regimes, not on the list?

I am not uncomfortable about white violence. You are using it as a means of comparison, when if level of violence was your argument, you would use an example that reflects a disproportionately high level of violence. But that would be about minorities and your too scared to be honest in that regard.

I've explained countless times why I happened to use mass shootings as an example back then. I'm not going to again. Keep trying to shove that square peg into the round hole.

Yes, the majority are peaceful. Measures should be in place to identify and bar the violent minority. This isn't difficult to understand but you are really struggling for some reason.

If you want Saudi Arabia on the list (a country who has measures for accounting for their citizens) ask why Obama didn't include them on his list.

And again, you brought up mass shootings to compare violence. But you chose a relatively low-frequency form of violence to make the comparison in an effort to show how violent America is. You did this because you THOUGHT it could easily be painted as white violence (which it cant), whereas if you really wanted to illustrate high rates of violence in the USA you would have used gang violence. But you didn't because then you wouldn't be able to virtue signal about racism.

You are transparent as shit, but that's common with people who are intellectually dishonest and deficient.

mario2000 posted...

No one is suggesting all Muslims are violent, but you are fooling yourself to suggest that many ME countries are violent and uncivilized. To suggest otherwise is willful ignorance. And again, it is not my job to determine the processes by which immigrants are vetted, but there has to be something to separate nonviolent Muslims from violent ones

Until we invent mind-reading, there isn't.

similar how there are processes to separate violent gun-seekers from nonviolent ones. Background checks, means of keeping track of citizens' actions and crimes, etc (you know, like every civilized country has when it comes to monitoring immigrants.)

Sure, if someone committed a violent crime and is trying to flee here to escape punishment or something, then yeah, keep them out. But you cannot discriminate based solely on religion or ethnicity. That is unconstitutional.

Your original intention of asking about mass shootings was to use a form of violence you thought you could characterize as white violence in order to compare that to muslim violence. If you didn't care about race and only the level of violence, you would have used gang violence, which is far more prevalent and claims far more lives. But you wouldn't dare to do that because you can't paint it as a white issue and you are dishonest and unintelligent. Not only are mass shootings NOT representative of white violence (because again, based on YOUR numbers, whites would be underrepresented) but you ignore the source of far, far more violence because it hurts your narrative.

"why didn't you use this OTHER kind of violence to make your point which has nothing to do with the specific type of violence wahhhh (which happens to be more predominately minority-committed)" yawn you're just a broken record at this point

I have nothing against Muslims. I want more peaceful people of any race, sex, creed, religion, etc in the country and more violent people not in the country or at least not free to roam in public. It is by no means unreasonable to want well-functioning systems in place to distinguish between the two.

You have nothing against Muslims so long as they stay out of the country, right?

And other than you being glaringly wrong, why would anything you're saying make me uncomfortable. Everything you've said proves my point, not yours, but you don't have the mental horsepower to understand that.

The fact that you keep trying to shift the topic of discussion from what you perceive as "white violence" (which was merely a throwaway point and not central to the core discussion at hand) to "minority violence" makes it clear that you are uncomfortable talking about the subject of white violence.

So there should be no gun control measures until there is mind reading right?

And I dont care if Muslims or anyone else comes to the country legally as long as they are peaceful. Couldn't have been any clearer.

And if you need it reiterated, it is not a ban based on religion. Because the countries on the list are a fraction of majority Muslim countries. It is a ban of countries that have been determined (by a previous administration, mind you) to be likelier to produce terrorism due to unchecked citizens.

I am not uncomfortable about white violence. You are using it as a means of comparison, when if level of violence was your argument, you would use an example that reflects a disproportionately high level of violence. But that would be about minorities and your too scared to be honest in that regard.

mario2000 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

mario2000 posted...

Could've fooled me with how you've been characterizing Muslims as "dangerous" and labeling entire countries as "violent shitholes".

No, that was me calling those countries violent shitholes, and they are. The absolute BEST muslim majority country you can find is not only riddled with human rights violations, but likely only "first world" in a few cities with the countryside being effectively ungoverned.

But go ahead and prove me wrong. Pick out the very best Islam dominated country out of the 52 that it currently dominates. Pick any one, and then let's compare it to Germany, or the UK, or Canada, or Sweden, or France, or any other first world nation built on western ideals. Pick the top 5, I don't care, because I know with 100% confidence that they best you can bring is still a shithole.

Again, I'd love to hear the tales of your adventures to all 52 of these countries and how you personally experienced how much of shitholes they supposedly are.

Ha, you simply can't do what he's asking and you know it. You're a fucking willfully ignorant clown and I'm done entertaining your stupidity.

mario2000 posted...

Literally no one has suggested America is a peaceful paradise. No one is suggesting every immigrant will bring violence. People are suggesting that procedures for vetting need to be reviewed and implemented to determine who may be a threat and who isnt. There is literally nothing wrong with that. Every civilized country monitors immigration.

Could've fooled me with how you've been characterizing Muslims as "dangerous" and labeling entire countries as "violent shitholes".

And if you think it is so violent, why would you not want processes to prevent more Violence from coming in?

You still have yet to provide even a hint as to what you think these processes should be.

Your argument makes no sense and you have been wrong with literally every point you have tried to argue. You simply don't have the mental capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion on the topic, so you should probably shut the f*** up before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

yawn

Also, you should at least be consistent. If you want to use homeland violence as a reason, why not use black violence, which is statistically overrepresented and likelier to happen? Why use white, which is underrepresented?

"How many mass shootings have happened in America in just this year?"

This was my original post. I never mentioned race. Yet you keep going BUH WUH BOUT GANG VIOLENCE because you'd rather talk about violence committed by minorities than violence committed by whites, which wasn't even my intent to begin with.

Is it because you are a virtue signalling hack and can't think for yourself? I think so.

I guess "virtue signalling" means "talking about subjects that make you feel uncomfortable"? OK then.

No one is suggesting all Muslims are violent, but you are fooling yourself to suggest that many ME countries are violent and uncivilized. To suggest otherwise is willful ignorance. And again, it is not my job to determine the processes by which immigrants are vetted, but there has to be something to separate nonviolent Muslims from violent ones similar how there are processes to separate violent gun-seekers from nonviolent ones. Background checks, means of keeping track of citizens' actions and crimes, etc (you know, like every civilized country has when it comes to monitoring immigrants.)

Your original intention of asking about mass shootings was to use a form of violence you thought you could characterize as white violence in order to compare that to muslim violence. If you didn't care about race and only the level of violence, you would have used gang violence, which is far more prevalent and claims far more lives. But you wouldn't dare to do that because you can't paint it as a white issue and you are dishonest and unintelligent. Not only are mass shootings NOT representative of white violence (because again, based on YOUR numbers, whites would be underrepresented) but you ignore the source of far, far more violence because it hurts your narrative.

I have nothing against Muslims. I want more peaceful people of any race, sex, creed, religion, etc in the country and more violent people not in the country or at least not free to roam in public. It is by no means unreasonable to want well-functioning systems in place to distinguish between the two.

And other than you being glaringly wrong, why would anything you're saying make me uncomfortable. Everything you've said proves my point, not yours, but you don't have the mental horsepower to understand that.

mario2000 posted...

Uh no, I brought up white violence in regards to mass shootings to counter the ridiculous notion that America is a paradise of peace and immigrants are gonna ruin that with their violence, and then you went off on a tangent about gang violence, which has fuck all to do with anything.

Straw man.

Literally no one has suggested America is a peaceful paradise. No one is suggesting every immigrant will bring violence. People are suggesting that procedures for vetting need to be reviewed and implemented to determine who may be a threat and who isnt. There is literally nothing wrong with that. Every civilized country monitors immigration.

And if you think it is so violent, why would you not want processes to prevent more Violence from coming in?

Your argument makes no sense and you have been wrong with literally every point you have tried to argue. You simply don't have the mental capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion on the topic, so you should probably shut the fuck up before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Also, you should at least be consistent. If you want to use homeland violence as a reason, why not use black violence, which is statistically overrepresented and likelier to happen? Why use white, which is underrepresented?

Is it because you are a virtue signalling hack and can't think for yourself? I think so.

mario2000 posted...

You're just plugging your ears and going LALALA BUT WHAT ABOUT MINORITIES LALALA. This isn't even funny anymore. It's just sad and pathetic.

No, I'm am breaking down your "white violence" narrative point by point but you are too stupid to counter in any way that makes any sense. You've not countered with a single legitimate point that hasn't been completely dismantled.

You whine about white violence. Your own numbers show you proof that per population there is significant underrepresentation. I used YOUR numbers to show that but you simply aren't intellectually honest enough to do anything but whine about shit you dont have the ability to understand.