INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Yuri Bezmenov on July 22, 2016, 11:50:07 AM
-
... ooh wait, oops.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/multiple-deaths-at-shooting-rampage-in-german-shopping-mall/ar-BBuFw6E?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
-
It was committed by furniture. We know that furniture was the true threat. Ask Odeon. He will tell you.
-
They had an axe attack a few days ago whats next?
-
They had an axe attack a few days ago whats next?
A car? No..wait.
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
A Muslim man screaming "Allahu akbar" before killing innocents and the German media being unable to imply a radical Muslim extremist narrative, instead chose to infer a relationship with Breivik, the far right wing terrorist. I can understand why the Liberal Media in the Liberal Germany would do that. Doesn't mean I will not see that there was possibly a little bit of both.
-
In any case, whole groups of innocent people will be made to suffer for the madness of a few.
-
In any case, whole groups of innocent people will be made to suffer for the madness of a few.
Have not recently heard the reports of mass furniture deaths making the news recently. These mad radicalised Muslims seem to be more and more plentiful. When do you expect the next mass furniture killing and when do you expect the next terror attack in the news? I am betting the next radicalised Muslim extremist attack comes way sooner.
-
In any case, whole groups of innocent people will be made to suffer for the madness of a few.
Have not recently heard the reports of mass furniture deaths making the news recently. These mad radicalised Muslims seem to be more and more plentiful. When do you expect the next mass furniture killing and when do you expect the next terror attack in the news? I am betting the next radicalised Muslim extremist attack comes way sooner.
Your just not looking hard enough :zoinks:
Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism
... According to the report, the number of U.S. citizens who died in terrorist attacks increased by two between 2010 and 2011; overall, a comparable number of Americans are crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year. This is not to diminish the real--albeit shrinking--threat of terrorism, or to minimize the loss and suffering of the 13,000 killed and over 45,000 injured around the world. For Americans, however, it should emphasize that an irrational fear of terrorism is both unwarranted and a poor basis for public policy decisions.
Link (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/)
And it seems the Swedes are behind at least part of it no wonder Odeon has been evasive :zoinks: :zoinks:
After 3 Deaths, Ikea Recalls Millions of Dangerous Dressers
Ikea has issued a recall for at least 29 million chests and dressers that can easily tip over onto children, injuring or killing them, NBC News confirmed.
The furniture giant said Monday that after the three deaths of three children it is no longer selling its "Malm" series products because they "could be a danger," Ikea USA president Lars Peterson told NBC News.
Link (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-3-deaths-ikea-recalls-millions-dangerous-dressers-n600011)
-
I didn't want to bring it up. :-[ Maybe Trump & Co would suggest banning IKEA furniture import.
-
Sweden is out to destroy the world!!! :soapbox:
Let's go get 'em!!! :arrr:
-
In any case, whole groups of innocent people will be made to suffer for the madness of a few.
Have not recently heard the reports of mass furniture deaths making the news recently. These mad radicalised Muslims seem to be more and more plentiful. When do you expect the next mass furniture killing and when do you expect the next terror attack in the news? I am betting the next radicalised Muslim extremist attack comes way sooner.
Your just not looking hard enough :zoinks:
Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism
... According to the report, the number of U.S. citizens who died in terrorist attacks increased by two between 2010 and 2011; overall, a comparable number of Americans are crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year. This is not to diminish the real--albeit shrinking--threat of terrorism, or to minimize the loss and suffering of the 13,000 killed and over 45,000 injured around the world. For Americans, however, it should emphasize that an irrational fear of terrorism is both unwarranted and a poor basis for public policy decisions.
Link (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/)
And it seems the Swedes are behind at least part of it no wonder Odeon has been evasive :zoinks: :zoinks:
After 3 Deaths, Ikea Recalls Millions of Dangerous Dressers
Ikea has issued a recall for at least 29 million chests and dressers that can easily tip over onto children, injuring or killing them, NBC News confirmed.
The furniture giant said Monday that after the three deaths of three children it is no longer selling its "Malm" series products because they "could be a danger," Ikea USA president Lars Peterson told NBC News.
Link (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-3-deaths-ikea-recalls-millions-dangerous-dressers-n600011)
I would love to know what kind of edgy furniture jokes Odeon could make to the families of the Paris Attacks or London Bombings or 9/11 or what have you. Maybe its all in the delivery.
-
In any case, whole groups of innocent people will be made to suffer for the madness of a few.
Have not recently heard the reports of mass furniture deaths making the news recently. These mad radicalised Muslims seem to be more and more plentiful. When do you expect the next mass furniture killing and when do you expect the next terror attack in the news? I am betting the next radicalised Muslim extremist attack comes way sooner.
Your just not looking hard enough :zoinks:
Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism
... According to the report, the number of U.S. citizens who died in terrorist attacks increased by two between 2010 and 2011; overall, a comparable number of Americans are crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year. This is not to diminish the real--albeit shrinking--threat of terrorism, or to minimize the loss and suffering of the 13,000 killed and over 45,000 injured around the world. For Americans, however, it should emphasize that an irrational fear of terrorism is both unwarranted and a poor basis for public policy decisions.
Link (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/)
And it seems the Swedes are behind at least part of it no wonder Odeon has been evasive :zoinks: :zoinks:
After 3 Deaths, Ikea Recalls Millions of Dangerous Dressers
Ikea has issued a recall for at least 29 million chests and dressers that can easily tip over onto children, injuring or killing them, NBC News confirmed.
The furniture giant said Monday that after the three deaths of three children it is no longer selling its "Malm" series products because they "could be a danger," Ikea USA president Lars Peterson told NBC News.
Link (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-3-deaths-ikea-recalls-millions-dangerous-dressers-n600011)
I would love to know what kind of edgy furniture jokes Odeon could make to the families of the Paris Attacks or London Bombings or 9/11 or what have you. Maybe its all in the delivery.
Making light of things is a way some people deal with such events but I am sure you know that. You are the one who related it to a furniture attack I only built on that. By the way here are some more stats from a life insurance web site
The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. A person is as likely to be killed by his or her own furniture, and more likely to die in a car accident, drown in a bathtub, or in a building fire than from a terrorist attack.
Link (http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/deadly-statistics/)
-
In any case, whole groups of innocent people will be made to suffer for the madness of a few.
Have not recently heard the reports of mass furniture deaths making the news recently. These mad radicalised Muslims seem to be more and more plentiful. When do you expect the next mass furniture killing and when do you expect the next terror attack in the news? I am betting the next radicalised Muslim extremist attack comes way sooner.
Your just not looking hard enough :zoinks:
Americans Are as Likely to Be Killed by Their Own Furniture as by Terrorism
... According to the report, the number of U.S. citizens who died in terrorist attacks increased by two between 2010 and 2011; overall, a comparable number of Americans are crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year. This is not to diminish the real--albeit shrinking--threat of terrorism, or to minimize the loss and suffering of the 13,000 killed and over 45,000 injured around the world. For Americans, however, it should emphasize that an irrational fear of terrorism is both unwarranted and a poor basis for public policy decisions.
Link (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/)
And it seems the Swedes are behind at least part of it no wonder Odeon has been evasive :zoinks: :zoinks:
After 3 Deaths, Ikea Recalls Millions of Dangerous Dressers
Ikea has issued a recall for at least 29 million chests and dressers that can easily tip over onto children, injuring or killing them, NBC News confirmed.
The furniture giant said Monday that after the three deaths of three children it is no longer selling its "Malm" series products because they "could be a danger," Ikea USA president Lars Peterson told NBC News.
Link (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-3-deaths-ikea-recalls-millions-dangerous-dressers-n600011)
I would love to know what kind of edgy furniture jokes Odeon could make to the families of the Paris Attacks or London Bombings or 9/11 or what have you. Maybe its all in the delivery.
Making light of things is a way some people deal with such events but I am sure you know that. You are the one who related it to a furniture attack I only built on that. By the way here are some more stats from a life insurance web site
The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. A person is as likely to be killed by his or her own furniture, and more likely to die in a car accident, drown in a bathtub, or in a building fire than from a terrorist attack.
Link (http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/deadly-statistics/)
No, no I get it.
I have a suspicion that the risk of a terrorist attack in France at the moment is substantially higher and there is a reason. What may only be a hundred casualties every 6 months or so in US a country of 320 million. This stacks very favourably against a couple of hundred casualties every couple of months in a population of 66 million.
At what point though is it considered an issue of any merit. I say it is right now, but if not, when?
Does it require the 100 body count type terror attacks to be bi-monthly, monthly, week, daily? Does it require more spectacularly awful terror acts like 9/11? Help me out here.
What about the intent of furniture to kill you and what motivates that furniture to kill you? What steps can you make to stop being killed by furniture. How do these standards apply to these radical Muslim extremists?
I don't see the problem as as dismissive as Odeon.
-
On a much happier note. Whilst the Swedes seem to have it figured that gun control is responsible for the latest shooting in Germany, the Swedes have worked out why they have been "the rape capital of the world"
http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/forklaringen-till-vagen-av-valdtakter-i-sommar/
I just heard there was another terrorist attack in Germany, this time 12 people. Wasn't a gun this time. It was a bomb. I think we can cite furniture as behind this attack.
-
On a much happier note. Whilst the Swedes seem to have it figured that gun control is responsible for the latest shooting in Germany, the Swedes have worked out why they have been "the rape capital of the world"
http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/forklaringen-till-vagen-av-valdtakter-i-sommar/
I just heard there was another terrorist attack in Germany, this time 12 people. Wasn't a gun this time. It was a bomb. I think we can cite furniture as behind this attack.
Is there an English translation of this somewhere??
-
On a much happier note. Whilst the Swedes seem to have it figured that gun control is responsible for the latest shooting in Germany, the Swedes have worked out why they have been "the rape capital of the world"
http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/forklaringen-till-vagen-av-valdtakter-i-sommar/
I just heard there was another terrorist attack in Germany, this time 12 people. Wasn't a gun this time. It was a bomb. I think we can cite furniture as behind this attack.
You're such a sad case, Al. Your butthurt knows no limits.
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
A Muslim man screaming "Allahu akbar" before killing innocents and the German media being unable to imply a radical Muslim extremist narrative, instead chose to infer a relationship with Breivik, the far right wing terrorist. I can understand why the Liberal Media in the Liberal Germany would do that. Doesn't mean I will not see that there was possibly a little bit of both.
What I read in Dutch and German news is that this shooting was not IS related. "Amokläufer".
If I were IS, I'd claim anything I could get away with. Anything to spread the fear. That's what they want, and they are pretty good at it, so far.
That there are IS related attacks is beyond doubt. That that needs attention too. That there are other shootings and attacks is also clear. Blaming all on IS would make the world delightfully clear, with good and bad, god and devil. The world is not that clear. The lone shooters/car drivers/ etc will be part of our world and will go undetected till they do their deeds.
(With the car I am not referring to the truck in Nice, but to Apeldoorn, 2009)
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
A Muslim man screaming "Allahu akbar" before killing innocents and the German media being unable to imply a radical Muslim extremist narrative, instead chose to infer a relationship with Breivik, the far right wing terrorist. I can understand why the Liberal Media in the Liberal Germany would do that. Doesn't mean I will not see that there was possibly a little bit of both.
What I read in Dutch and German news is that this shooting was not IS related. "Amokläufer".
If I were IS, I'd claim anything I could get away with. Anything to spread the fear. That's what they want, and they are pretty good at it, so far.
That there are IS related attacks is beyond doubt. That that needs attention too. That there are other shootings and attacks is also clear. Blaming all on IS would make the world delightfully clear, with good and bad, god and devil. The world is not that clear. The lone shooters/car drivers/ etc will be part of our world and will go undetected till they do their deeds.
(With the car I am not referring to the truck in Nice, but to Apeldoorn, 2009)
I do not think people ARE blaming ALL on IS. So not sure how this holds water with what you are saying?
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
A Muslim man screaming "Allahu akbar" before killing innocents and the German media being unable to imply a radical Muslim extremist narrative, instead chose to infer a relationship with Breivik, the far right wing terrorist. I can understand why the Liberal Media in the Liberal Germany would do that. Doesn't mean I will not see that there was possibly a little bit of both.
What I read in Dutch and German news is that this shooting was not IS related. "Amokläufer".
If I were IS, I'd claim anything I could get away with. Anything to spread the fear. That's what they want, and they are pretty good at it, so far.
That there are IS related attacks is beyond doubt. That that needs attention too. That there are other shootings and attacks is also clear. Blaming all on IS would make the world delightfully clear, with good and bad, god and devil. The world is not that clear. The lone shooters/car drivers/ etc will be part of our world and will go undetected till they do their deeds.
(With the car I am not referring to the truck in Nice, but to Apeldoorn, 2009)
I do not think people ARE blaming ALL on IS. So not sure how this holds water with what you are saying?
Germany first thought this was a terrorist attack, then they concluded it was not. Yet you say it probably is, but that Liberal Media does not want to have it so. That is what I reacted on. Germany has a history with terrorism. Germans are not fainthearted when it comes to naming something by the name it deserves. The RAF knew how to kill. They were part of the news a lot, when I was a youngster.
Further, if I were part of IS, I would make sure lots of nasty incidents were claimed by IS. Anything to spread the fear. If I were a member of IS, I would be delighted that people thought this loner was a soldier for the bloody cause.
-
... ooh wait, oops.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/multiple-deaths-at-shooting-rampage-in-german-shopping-mall/ar-BBuFw6E?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
Jesus Christ. See the Japan thread for comment. I seriously can't work out if you are joking or you really are like this.
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
A Muslim man screaming "Allahu akbar" before killing innocents and the German media being unable to imply a radical Muslim extremist narrative, instead chose to infer a relationship with Breivik, the far right wing terrorist. I can understand why the Liberal Media in the Liberal Germany would do that. Doesn't mean I will not see that there was possibly a little bit of both.
What I read in Dutch and German news is that this shooting was not IS related. "Amokläufer".
If I were IS, I'd claim anything I could get away with. Anything to spread the fear. That's what they want, and they are pretty good at it, so far.
That there are IS related attacks is beyond doubt. That that needs attention too. That there are other shootings and attacks is also clear. Blaming all on IS would make the world delightfully clear, with good and bad, god and devil. The world is not that clear. The lone shooters/car drivers/ etc will be part of our world and will go undetected till they do their deeds.
(With the car I am not referring to the truck in Nice, but to Apeldoorn, 2009)
I do not think people ARE blaming ALL on IS. So not sure how this holds water with what you are saying?
Germany first thought this was a terrorist attack, then they concluded it was not. Yet you say it probably is, but that Liberal Media does not want to have it so. That is what I reacted on. Germany has a history with terrorism. Germans are not fainthearted when it comes to naming something by the name it deserves. The RAF knew how to kill. They were part of the news a lot, when I was a youngster.
Further, if I were part of IS, I would make sure lots of nasty incidents were claimed by IS. Anything to spread the fear. If I were a member of IS, I would be delighted that people thought this loner was a soldier for the bloody cause.
You can't be "reacting" on my comment because I have never said ALL terror attacks are. So it would make no sense at all to even infer it.
-
On a much happier note. Whilst the Swedes seem to have it figured that gun control is responsible for the latest shooting in Germany, the Swedes have worked out why they have been "the rape capital of the world"
http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/forklaringen-till-vagen-av-valdtakter-i-sommar/
I just heard there was another terrorist attack in Germany, this time 12 people. Wasn't a gun this time. It was a bomb. I think we can cite furniture as behind this attack.
You're such a sad case, Al. Your butthurt knows no limits.
Butthutt? By what do you imagine o am butthurt?
I understand some furniture decapitated a French Priest today. I think we can all safely rule out any suggestion of radical Muslim extremism.
-
What media outlet are 'liberal'?
-
What media outlet are 'liberal'?
The vast majority are here.
-
On a much happier note. Whilst the Swedes seem to have it figured that gun control is responsible for the latest shooting in Germany, the Swedes have worked out why they have been "the rape capital of the world"
http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/forklaringen-till-vagen-av-valdtakter-i-sommar/
I just heard there was another terrorist attack in Germany, this time 12 people. Wasn't a gun this time. It was a bomb. I think we can cite furniture as behind this attack.
You're such a sad case, Al. Your butthurt knows no limits.
Butthutt? By what do you imagine o am butthurt?
I understand some furniture decapitated a French Priest today. I think we can all safely rule out any suggestion of radical Muslim extremism.
It's either serious butthurt or you seriously like me and this is your version of pulling my hair.
Or you could simply be an idiot and think your words have merit.
-
What media outlet are 'liberal'?
The vast majority are here.
In what way?
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
A Muslim man screaming "Allahu akbar" before killing innocents and the German media being unable to imply a radical Muslim extremist narrative, instead chose to infer a relationship with Breivik, the far right wing terrorist. I can understand why the Liberal Media in the Liberal Germany would do that. Doesn't mean I will not see that there was possibly a little bit of both.
What I read in Dutch and German news is that this shooting was not IS related. "Amokläufer".
If I were IS, I'd claim anything I could get away with. Anything to spread the fear. That's what they want, and they are pretty good at it, so far.
That there are IS related attacks is beyond doubt. That that needs attention too. That there are other shootings and attacks is also clear. Blaming all on IS would make the world delightfully clear, with good and bad, god and devil. The world is not that clear. The lone shooters/car drivers/ etc will be part of our world and will go undetected till they do their deeds.
(With the car I am not referring to the truck in Nice, but to Apeldoorn, 2009)
I do not think people ARE blaming ALL on IS. So not sure how this holds water with what you are saying?
Germany first thought this was a terrorist attack, then they concluded it was not. Yet you say it probably is, but that Liberal Media does not want to have it so. That is what I reacted on. Germany has a history with terrorism. Germans are not fainthearted when it comes to naming something by the name it deserves. The RAF knew how to kill. They were part of the news a lot, when I was a youngster.
Further, if I were part of IS, I would make sure lots of nasty incidents were claimed by IS. Anything to spread the fear. If I were a member of IS, I would be delighted that people thought this loner was a soldier for the bloody cause.
You can't be "reacting" on my comment because I have never said ALL terror attacks are. So it would make no sense at all to even infer it.
You did not say all. Correct.
You do imply that the Germans, especially the media, may be deliberately missing out on terrorist motivation of the shooter in München. I do not get why the Germans would do that. I see not a single reason why they do.
This happened to be a shooter like they've had before, a kid running amok. Not that different from the plane that crashed a while ago. A man going down with a plane full of people, for no other reason than his own bizarre psyche.
I cannot understand why media would benefit from taking a terrorist reason away from it, if it was there. There is no logical reason to do so.
-
Because of their cheerleading to pour millions of Arab and African Muslims into Europe?
-
Still, this will probably be another lowlife druggie/drunkard with serious mental issues. Like in France today. And one of the killers today I heard tried to get into Syria to fight for ISIS, but he was caught and taken back to France and then released :scratchhead: If he'd actually made it to Syria he would have probably been blown up, possibly by a French soldier :headhurts:
-
Because of their cheerleading to pour millions of Arab and African Muslims into Europe?
Because it is the humane thing to do. In case you didn't know, there is a war going on and people are fleeing for their lives.
-
What media outlet are 'liberal'?
The vast majority are here.
In what way?
By reporting news stories which support left-wing politics, and/or promoting a left-wing opinionated slant to reporting of events. While there are a couple of mainstream news outlets in the US which are considered to have a conservative bias, and all news outlets probably display some degree of centrism, US news generally has a liberal political tone.
-
You did not say all. Correct.
You do imply that the Germans, especially the media, may be deliberately missing out on terrorist motivation of the shooter in München. I do not get why the Germans would do that. I see not a single reason why they do.
This happened to be a shooter like they've had before, a kid running amok. Not that different from the plane that crashed a while ago. A man going down with a plane full of people, for no other reason than his own bizarre psyche.
I cannot understand why media would benefit from taking a terrorist reason away from it, if it was there. There is no logical reason to do so.
Initially, the US Department of Justice released a redacted transcript of the Orlando shooter's call to 911, which had removed reference to terrorists and the Islamic state. It was the media outrage which prompted an uncensored release, though news reports claim there were a total of three calls made to 911 and the FBI is still concealing what was said on the other calls. There is no logical reason to do so.
-
On a much happier note. Whilst the Swedes seem to have it figured that gun control is responsible for the latest shooting in Germany, the Swedes have worked out why they have been "the rape capital of the world"
http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/forklaringen-till-vagen-av-valdtakter-i-sommar/
I just heard there was another terrorist attack in Germany, this time 12 people. Wasn't a gun this time. It was a bomb. I think we can cite furniture as behind this attack.
You're such a sad case, Al. Your butthurt knows no limits.
Butthutt? By what do you imagine o am butthurt?
I understand some furniture decapitated a French Priest today. I think we can all safely rule out any suggestion of radical Muslim extremism.
It's either serious butthurt or you seriously like me and this is your version of pulling my hair.
Or you could simply be an idiot and think your words have merit.
Do you imagine the there is merit in what you say Odeon? If showing you lying and trying to bait and switch was not enough to disavow you and anyone else the what you write needs to be taken with a grain of salt, then I don't know what else is to be shoqn
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
A Muslim man screaming "Allahu akbar" before killing innocents and the German media being unable to imply a radical Muslim extremist narrative, instead chose to infer a relationship with Breivik, the far right wing terrorist. I can understand why the Liberal Media in the Liberal Germany would do that. Doesn't mean I will not see that there was possibly a little bit of both.
What I read in Dutch and German news is that this shooting was not IS related. "Amokläufer".
If I were IS, I'd claim anything I could get away with. Anything to spread the fear. That's what they want, and they are pretty good at it, so far.
That there are IS related attacks is beyond doubt. That that needs attention too. That there are other shootings and attacks is also clear. Blaming all on IS would make the world delightfully clear, with good and bad, god and devil. The world is not that clear. The lone shooters/car drivers/ etc will be part of our world and will go undetected till they do their deeds.
(With the car I am not referring to the truck in Nice, but to Apeldoorn, 2009)
I do not think people ARE blaming ALL on IS. So not sure how this holds water with what you are saying?
Germany first thought this was a terrorist attack, then they concluded it was not. Yet you say it probably is, but that Liberal Media does not want to have it so. That is what I reacted on. Germany has a history with terrorism. Germans are not fainthearted when it comes to naming something by the name it deserves. The RAF knew how to kill. They were part of the news a lot, when I was a youngster.
Further, if I were part of IS, I would make sure lots of nasty incidents were claimed by IS. Anything to spread the fear. If I were a member of IS, I would be delighted that people thought this loner was a soldier for the bloody cause.
You can't be "reacting" on my comment because I have never said ALL terror attacks are. So it would make no sense at all to even infer it.
You did not say all. Correct.
You do imply that the Germans, especially the media, may be deliberately missing out on terrorist motivation of the shooter in München. I do not get why the Germans would do that. I see not a single reason why they do.
This happened to be a shooter like they've had before, a kid running amok. Not that different from the plane that crashed a while ago. A man going down with a plane full of people, for no other reason than his own bizarre psyche.
I cannot understand why media would benefit from taking a terrorist reason away from it, if it was there. There is no logical reason to do so.
I can well imagine. If Germany wishes to be seen as inclusive, views the open borders as important and Europe as being a supernation of which Germany is stripped of individual identity, then it starts making sense.
Look at Angela Merkel here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rcc7xgD2dM
German flags, how perfectly revolting. Why celebrate your own country's identity?
What I posted above can be, like any ideology or perspective, taken to some strange, crazy or dangerous lengths.
If you believe that regular attacks by radicalised Muslims may panic the population and perhaps make
it seem that you are not as tolerant as you would like to be perceived, then you spin things. Why? Well even here, whilst I was so very careful to criticise radical Muslim extremists and made it absolutely clear that this is the group I had issues with, what was Odeon's response?
He called me a bigot. Could not back himself when asked to show where I had been a bigot and doubled down irrespective of what I had said. That is expected whenever you go there. Are there problems with Muslims who are radical Muslim extremists...No..you are a bigot. You hate all Muslims. You are so intolerant.
I think they know this and I think they are trapped by their own ideological positions. I think the European media take the same position as the governments and the culture generally and so they look to throw the scent off with every attack. I do not find it cautious I find it harmful.
-
On a much happier note. Whilst the Swedes seem to have it figured that gun control is responsible for the latest shooting in Germany, the Swedes have worked out why they have been "the rape capital of the world"
http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/forklaringen-till-vagen-av-valdtakter-i-sommar/
I just heard there was another terrorist attack in Germany, this time 12 people. Wasn't a gun this time. It was a bomb. I think we can cite furniture as behind this attack.
You're such a sad case, Al. Your butthurt knows no limits.
Butthutt? By what do you imagine o am butthurt?
I understand some furniture decapitated a French Priest today. I think we can all safely rule out any suggestion of radical Muslim extremism.
It's either serious butthurt or you seriously like me and this is your version of pulling my hair.
Or you could simply be an idiot and think your words have merit.
Do you imagine the there is merit in what you say Odeon? If showing you lying and trying to bait and switch was not enough to disavow you and anyone else the what you write needs to be taken with a grain of salt, then I don't know what else is to be shoqn
My money is on butthurt, then, probably combined with that other thing.
This is like talking politics with a five year old. It's fun for a while but ultimately utterly futile and a bit nasty.
-
On a much happier note. Whilst the Swedes seem to have it figured that gun control is responsible for the latest shooting in Germany, the Swedes have worked out why they have been "the rape capital of the world"
http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/forklaringen-till-vagen-av-valdtakter-i-sommar/
I just heard there was another terrorist attack in Germany, this time 12 people. Wasn't a gun this time. It was a bomb. I think we can cite furniture as behind this attack.
You're such a sad case, Al. Your butthurt knows no limits.
Butthutt? By what do you imagine o am butthurt?
I understand some furniture decapitated a French Priest today. I think we can all safely rule out any suggestion of radical Muslim extremism.
It's either serious butthurt or you seriously like me and this is your version of pulling my hair.
Or you could simply be an idiot and think your words have merit.
Do you imagine the there is merit in what you say Odeon? If showing you lying and trying to bait and switch was not enough to disavow you and anyone else the what you write needs to be taken with a grain of salt, then I don't know what else is to be shoqn
My money is on butthurt, then, probably combined with that other thing.
This is like talking politics with a five year old. It's fun for a while but ultimately utterly futile and a bit nasty.
Its an interesting picture you paint. It's on the heels of you inferring gold stars should be given for good behaviour and blacks should have their guns taken away.
So holding with what I said above, taking what you say with a grain of salt is best.
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
A Muslim man screaming "Allahu akbar" before killing innocents and the German media being unable to imply a radical Muslim extremist narrative, instead chose to infer a relationship with Breivik, the far right wing terrorist. I can understand why the Liberal Media in the Liberal Germany would do that. Doesn't mean I will not see that there was possibly a little bit of both.
What I read in Dutch and German news is that this shooting was not IS related. "Amokläufer".
If I were IS, I'd claim anything I could get away with. Anything to spread the fear. That's what they want, and they are pretty good at it, so far.
That there are IS related attacks is beyond doubt. That that needs attention too. That there are other shootings and attacks is also clear. Blaming all on IS would make the world delightfully clear, with good and bad, god and devil. The world is not that clear. The lone shooters/car drivers/ etc will be part of our world and will go undetected till they do their deeds.
(With the car I am not referring to the truck in Nice, but to Apeldoorn, 2009)
I do not think people ARE blaming ALL on IS. So not sure how this holds water with what you are saying?
Germany first thought this was a terrorist attack, then they concluded it was not. Yet you say it probably is, but that Liberal Media does not want to have it so. That is what I reacted on. Germany has a history with terrorism. Germans are not fainthearted when it comes to naming something by the name it deserves. The RAF knew how to kill. They were part of the news a lot, when I was a youngster.
Further, if I were part of IS, I would make sure lots of nasty incidents were claimed by IS. Anything to spread the fear. If I were a member of IS, I would be delighted that people thought this loner was a soldier for the bloody cause.
You can't be "reacting" on my comment because I have never said ALL terror attacks are. So it would make no sense at all to even infer it.
You did not say all. Correct.
You do imply that the Germans, especially the media, may be deliberately missing out on terrorist motivation of the shooter in München. I do not get why the Germans would do that. I see not a single reason why they do.
This happened to be a shooter like they've had before, a kid running amok. Not that different from the plane that crashed a while ago. A man going down with a plane full of people, for no other reason than his own bizarre psyche.
I cannot understand why media would benefit from taking a terrorist reason away from it, if it was there. There is no logical reason to do so.
I can well imagine. If Germany wishes to be seen as inclusive, views the open borders as important and Europe as being a supernation of which Germany is stripped of individual identity, then it starts making sense.
Look at Angela Merkel here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rcc7xgD2dM
German flags, how perfectly revolting. Why celebrate your own country's identity?
What I posted above can be, like any ideology or perspective, taken to some strange, crazy or dangerous lengths.
If you believe that regular attacks by radicalised Muslims may panic the population and perhaps make
it seem that you are not as tolerant as you would like to be perceived, then you spin things. Why? Well even here, whilst I was so very careful to criticise radical Muslim extremists and made it absolutely clear that this is the group I had issues with, what was Odeon's response?
He called me a bigot. Could not back himself when asked to show where I had been a bigot and doubled down irrespective of what I had said. That is expected whenever you go there. Are there problems with Muslims who are radical Muslim extremists...No..you are a bigot. You hate all Muslims. You are so intolerant.
I think they know this and I think they are trapped by their own ideological positions. I think the European media take the same position as the governments and the culture generally and so they look to throw the scent off with every attack. I do not find it cautious I find it harmful.
The media does not hesitate to see the IS connection in the other sttacks. So, where is the benefit for the media to hide it in this single case?
I do not get it.
-
A loner, a quiet teen, a kid with psychological problems, a teen obsessed with mass shootings, especially the one done by Breivik.
It's only waiting for the verdict that he was autistic. The other kind of dangerous people.
A Muslim man screaming "Allahu akbar" before killing innocents and the German media being unable to imply a radical Muslim extremist narrative, instead chose to infer a relationship with Breivik, the far right wing terrorist. I can understand why the Liberal Media in the Liberal Germany would do that. Doesn't mean I will not see that there was possibly a little bit of both.
What I read in Dutch and German news is that this shooting was not IS related. "Amokläufer".
If I were IS, I'd claim anything I could get away with. Anything to spread the fear. That's what they want, and they are pretty good at it, so far.
That there are IS related attacks is beyond doubt. That that needs attention too. That there are other shootings and attacks is also clear. Blaming all on IS would make the world delightfully clear, with good and bad, god and devil. The world is not that clear. The lone shooters/car drivers/ etc will be part of our world and will go undetected till they do their deeds.
(With the car I am not referring to the truck in Nice, but to Apeldoorn, 2009)
I do not think people ARE blaming ALL on IS. So not sure how this holds water with what you are saying?
Germany first thought this was a terrorist attack, then they concluded it was not. Yet you say it probably is, but that Liberal Media does not want to have it so. That is what I reacted on. Germany has a history with terrorism. Germans are not fainthearted when it comes to naming something by the name it deserves. The RAF knew how to kill. They were part of the news a lot, when I was a youngster.
Further, if I were part of IS, I would make sure lots of nasty incidents were claimed by IS. Anything to spread the fear. If I were a member of IS, I would be delighted that people thought this loner was a soldier for the bloody cause.
You can't be "reacting" on my comment because I have never said ALL terror attacks are. So it would make no sense at all to even infer it.
You did not say all. Correct.
You do imply that the Germans, especially the media, may be deliberately missing out on terrorist motivation of the shooter in München. I do not get why the Germans would do that. I see not a single reason why they do.
This happened to be a shooter like they've had before, a kid running amok. Not that different from the plane that crashed a while ago. A man going down with a plane full of people, for no other reason than his own bizarre psyche.
I cannot understand why media would benefit from taking a terrorist reason away from it, if it was there. There is no logical reason to do so.
I can well imagine. If Germany wishes to be seen as inclusive, views the open borders as important and Europe as being a supernation of which Germany is stripped of individual identity, then it starts making sense.
Look at Angela Merkel here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rcc7xgD2dM
German flags, how perfectly revolting. Why celebrate your own country's identity?
What I posted above can be, like any ideology or perspective, taken to some strange, crazy or dangerous lengths.
If you believe that regular attacks by radicalised Muslims may panic the population and perhaps make
it seem that you are not as tolerant as you would like to be perceived, then you spin things. Why? Well even here, whilst I was so very careful to criticise radical Muslim extremists and made it absolutely clear that this is the group I had issues with, what was Odeon's response?
He called me a bigot. Could not back himself when asked to show where I had been a bigot and doubled down irrespective of what I had said. That is expected whenever you go there. Are there problems with Muslims who are radical Muslim extremists...No..you are a bigot. You hate all Muslims. You are so intolerant.
I think they know this and I think they are trapped by their own ideological positions. I think the European media take the same position as the governments and the culture generally and so they look to throw the scent off with every attack. I do not find it cautious I find it harmful.
The media does not hesitate to see the IS connection in the other sttacks. So, where is the benefit for the media to hide it in this single case?
I do not get it.
I have already stated where the benefit is.
Here is the thing. This guy was a Muslim guy and radicalised and his attack was a terror attack and inspired by the radical Muslim extremists complete with the "God is great" pronouncement.
That is on the face of things straight up Radical Muslim extremism.
However:
He was young
He was a loner
He was mentally ill
He was not a card carrying ISIS member
He was inspired rather than conscripted
Therefore....which "angle" do you go for? As I said, bit of A and bit of B
-
My money is on butthurt, then, probably combined with that other thing.
This is like talking politics with a five year old. It's fun for a while but ultimately utterly futile and a bit nasty.
Its an interesting picture you paint. It's on the heels of you inferring gold stars should be given for good behaviour and blacks should have their guns taken away.
So holding with what I said above, taking what you say with a grain of salt is best.
I'm sorry, did you have a point?
-
Because of their cheerleading to pour millions of Arab and African Muslims into Europe?
Because it is the humane thing to do. In case you didn't know, there is a war going on and people are fleeing for their lives.
No it is not, it's the most idiotic thing to do. The most humane thing to do is not destroy countries so that people have a reason to leave, and then encourage them to do so by making it well known that they will now be picked up a few miles of the coast of Libya if they try to get to Europe by boat. They ought to told that they have no place in Europe and they will be taken straight back to their set sail from. Or better still, stop the boats leaving shore.
-
What media outlet are 'liberal'?
The vast majority are here.
In what way?
By reporting news stories which support left-wing politics, and/or promoting a left-wing opinionated slant to reporting of events. While there are a couple of mainstream news outlets in the US which are considered to have a conservative bias, and all news outlets probably display some degree of centrism, US news generally has a liberal political tone.
'Liberal' you mean? They are liberal in the slightest. Call it 'left wing' if you want. They are just all corporate/globalist media.
-
What media outlet are 'liberal'?
The vast majority are here.
In what way?
By reporting news stories which support left-wing politics, and/or promoting a left-wing opinionated slant to reporting of events. While there are a couple of mainstream news outlets in the US which are considered to have a conservative bias, and all news outlets probably display some degree of centrism, US news generally has a liberal political tone.
'Liberal' you mean? They are liberal in the slightest. Call it 'left wing' if you want. They are just all corporate/globalist media.
Liberal and conservative political viewpoints are synonymous with left and right wing in the US.
-
Therefore....which "angle" do you go for? As I said, bit of A and bit of B
It appears now not to be a coincidence that all his victims were foreigners. Not only did he admire Breivik. He also seemed to admire Hitler. That he took pride in being a German is what clearly can be heard in the footage.
I think that bit of option B can be skipped.
-
What media outlet are 'liberal'?
The vast majority are here.
In what way?
By reporting news stories which support left-wing politics, and/or promoting a left-wing opinionated slant to reporting of events. While there are a couple of mainstream news outlets in the US which are considered to have a conservative bias, and all news outlets probably display some degree of centrism, US news generally has a liberal political tone.
'Liberal' you mean? They are liberal in the slightest. Call it 'left wing' if you want. They are just all corporate/globalist media.
Liberal and conservative political viewpoints are synonymous with left and right wing in the US.
Apparently so.
-
What media outlet are 'liberal'?
The vast majority are here.
In what way?
By reporting news stories which support left-wing politics, and/or promoting a left-wing opinionated slant to reporting of events. While there are a couple of mainstream news outlets in the US which are considered to have a conservative bias, and all news outlets probably display some degree of centrism, US news generally has a liberal political tone.
'Liberal' you mean? They are liberal in the slightest. Call it 'left wing' if you want. They are just all corporate/globalist media.
Liberal and conservative political viewpoints are synonymous with left and right wing in the US.
Apparently so.
What does it mean where you are?
-
My money is on butthurt, then, probably combined with that other thing.
This is like talking politics with a five year old. It's fun for a while but ultimately utterly futile and a bit nasty.
Its an interesting picture you paint. It's on the heels of you inferring gold stars should be given for good behaviour and blacks should have their guns taken away.
So holding with what I said above, taking what you say with a grain of salt is best.
I'm sorry, did you have a point?
Don't be sorry. I am not upset by your lack of comprehension. You talk a lot of shit and so people need not take much of what you say as of any merit.
-
Therefore....which "angle" do you go for? As I said, bit of A and bit of B
It appears now not to be a coincidence that all his victims were foreigners. Not only did he admire Breivik. He also seemed to admire Hitler. That he took pride in being a German is what clearly can be heard in the footage.
I think that bit of option B can be skipped.
A: This guy was a Muslim guy and radicalised and his attack was a terror attack and inspired by the radical Muslim extremists complete with the "God is great" pronouncement.
That is on the face of things straight up Radical Muslim extremism.
B: He was young
He was a loner
He was mentally ill
He was not a card carrying ISIS member
He was inspired rather than conscripted
I think that we should still keep B.
Both have their place.
To be honest I am now not even thinking on this guy I am thinking of the decapitated French Priest.
-
Because of their cheerleading to pour millions of Arab and African Muslims into Europe?
Because it is the humane thing to do. In case you didn't know, there is a war going on and people are fleeing for their lives.
No it is not, it's the most idiotic thing to do. The most humane thing to do is not destroy countries so that people have a reason to leave, and then encourage them to do so by making it well known that they will now be picked up a few miles of the coast of Libya if they try to get to Europe by boat. They ought to told that they have no place in Europe and they will be taken straight back to their set sail from. Or better still, stop the boats leaving shore.
It would be far better if the war could be stopped. The vast majority of these people didn't (and don't) want to leave--they, like most of us, have built up their lives in their home countries, and having to leave everything behind is not what any one of us wants.
There is room in Europe, plenty of room, and the people are going to board those boats--any boats--regardless. The logical thing for us to do would be to make it safer for them. I'd suggest providing transport. It would probably save both money and lives.
-
My money is on butthurt, then, probably combined with that other thing.
This is like talking politics with a five year old. It's fun for a while but ultimately utterly futile and a bit nasty.
Its an interesting picture you paint. It's on the heels of you inferring gold stars should be given for good behaviour and blacks should have their guns taken away.
So holding with what I said above, taking what you say with a grain of salt is best.
I'm sorry, did you have a point?
Don't be sorry. I am not upset by your lack of comprehension. You talk a lot of shit and so people need not take much of what you say as of any merit.
"People" meaning you. The others here are capable of a discussion.
I suggested ending this a long time ago, pointing out that this will probably ruin whatever friendship we had, and I would say it has. I am still willing to stop, if you are. Do you think something can be gained by continuing this now? Let's face it, Al. Neither of us will engage in a serious discussion with the other under the current circumstances, but we will create a lot of noise for others. Is that really what we want?
-
Therefore....which "angle" do you go for? As I said, bit of A and bit of B
It appears now not to be a coincidence that all his victims were foreigners. Not only did he admire Breivik. He also seemed to admire Hitler. That he took pride in being a German is what clearly can be heard in the footage.
I think that bit of option B can be skipped.
A: This guy was a Muslim guy and radicalised and his attack was a terror attack and inspired by the radical Muslim extremists complete with the "God is great" pronouncement.
That is on the face of things straight up Radical Muslim extremism.
B: He was young
He was a loner
He was mentally ill
He was not a card carrying ISIS member
He was inspired rather than conscripted
I think that we should still keep B.
Both have their place.
To be honest I am now not even thinking on this guy I am thinking of the decapitated French Priest.
Your pick, whether my mixing up of A and B is due to a horrible sense of humour or total fatique. Both could be equally true.
I meant you could skip the IS factor here.
The French Priest has nothing to do with the German Media.
My whole point was not about if IS is a real threat or not. I was questioning your thoughts on the German Media.
-
When it comes to IS, my thoughts are with the people of Kabul too. And with the Jezidi's. In Afganistan some IS soldiers return back to the fold of the Taliban, because IS is too much for them.
When it comes to dangers at home? In my country, I find Erdohan way more creepy than IS at the moment. Because he is so horribly well organised, and seems to combine GDR and former Romanian tactics to keep a grip on his people.
the signs have been there for quite a while, but it is growing exponentially now. He has outdone Putin by far when it comes to creepy and effective behaviour.
-
German forces do tread more carefully than the French. They have right extremism to deal with, IS threats, but also a history of enforcement that went way beyond the boundaries of decent behaviour. They know how power can corrupt. Makes it a bit harder for them to find a tougher way. They have a caveat on their mind.
More countries could do with a caveat on their mind, when it comes to extending powers of enforcement.
-
Therefore....which "angle" do you go for? As I said, bit of A and bit of B
It appears now not to be a coincidence that all his victims were foreigners. Not only did he admire Breivik. He also seemed to admire Hitler. That he took pride in being a German is what clearly can be heard in the footage.
I think that bit of option B can be skipped.
A: This guy was a Muslim guy and radicalised and his attack was a terror attack and inspired by the radical Muslim extremists complete with the "God is great" pronouncement.
That is on the face of things straight up Radical Muslim extremism.
B: He was young
He was a loner
He was mentally ill
He was not a card carrying ISIS member
He was inspired rather than conscripted
I think that we should still keep B.
Both have their place.
To be honest I am now not even thinking on this guy I am thinking of the decapitated French Priest.
Your pick, whether my mixing up of A and B is due to a horrible sense of humour or total fatique. Both could be equally true.
I meant you could skip the IS factor here.
The French Priest has nothing to do with the German Media.
My whole point was not about if IS is a real threat or not. I was questioning your thoughts on the German Media.
My thoughts are the same and have been laid out.
-
German forces do tread more carefully than the French. They have right extremism to deal with, IS threats, but also a history of enforcement that went way beyond the boundaries of decent behaviour. They know how power can corrupt. Makes it a bit harder for them to find a tougher way. They have a caveat on their mind.
More countries could do with a caveat on their mind, when it comes to extending powers of enforcement.
Here is where you and I slightly differ. I actually agree with you to a point BUT letting collective guilt, fear and caution bind hands even binding them loosely is a mistake. It allows one to be taken advantage of. Now this is possibly my own values projected, but be that as it may, I happen to believe in what i believe.
-
My thoughts are the same and have been laid out.
Now I wonder when the shooting boy shouted the Allah is Great thing. Don't think he did. So don't think the media were covering anything up.
-
My thoughts are the same and have been laid out.
Now I wonder when the shooting boy shouted the Allah is Great thing. Don't think he did. So don't think the media were covering anything up.
It has been reported as such in 3 or 4 international papers so I can assume it's true. This isthe worry of the Radical Muslim extremist
-
My thoughts are the same and have been laid out.
Now I wonder when the shooting boy shouted the Allah is Great thing. Don't think he did. So don't think the media were covering anything up.
It has been reported as such in 3 or 4 international papers so I can assume it's true. This isthe worry of the Radical Muslim extremist
What I read, there was a young guy in a suburb of München attacking with a knife, while shouting that Allah is great. What I heard on the footage of the shooter, and what I read in the papers about the shooter, in München, was that he shouted "Ich bin Deutscher".
-
My thoughts are the same and have been laid out.
Now I wonder when the shooting boy shouted the Allah is Great thing. Don't think he did. So don't think the media were covering anything up.
It has been reported as such in 3 or 4 international papers so I can assume it's true. This isthe worry of the Radical Muslim extremist
What I read, there was a young guy in a suburb of München attacking with a knife, while shouting that Allah is great. What I heard on the footage of the shooter, and what I read in the papers about the shooter, in München, was that he shouted "Ich bin Deutscher".
See this is the thing and I hope you can appreciate what I am saying here.
As I have mentioned I am done justifying my position over and over. You may have whatever positions and that is fine.
* I said why I say that this is (in my mind) an example of radical Muslim extremism and that the papers were wrong in not acknowledging it.
* You asked why and I told you why I believed it to be so.
* You disputed that .
* Fine, I highlighted that I still believe it to be so and why, but conceded that there could be other factors in play that you had mentioned.
* You doubted one of the factors I had mentioned (saying "God is great")
* I had said this was true and reported in international papers so I am assuming that.
* Not convinced, you cast doubt on what I said and you dispute it again.
Fine Hyke, I don't care. You were right, I am wrong. You were right all along in whatever you want to be the reality of the situation, and conversely I was wrong in believing what I believe based on the facts of the matter.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/what-know-ali-david-sonboly-8476548
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3704481/Loner-son-taxi-driver-department-store-worker-waged-terror-Munich-Iranian-German-teenager-18-targeted-innocent-children-gunned-nine-McDonald-s-massacre.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/europe/germany-munich-shooting/
http://www.pi-news.net/2016/07/ali-david-sonboly-in-vorbereitungsklasse/
Each of these international papers has recorded that he was heard saying "allahu akbar". This is translated to "God is great" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahu_Akbar_(disambiguation).
This is commonly used before a radical Muslim extremist attack or radical Muslim terrorist attack by the perpetrator....as it was here.
By all means please feel free to keep telling me I got it wrong but you will understand I will stop re-explaining myself and justifying my view over and over. I understand you don't agree with me and want me to be wrong, and you right (about whatever it is that you were wanting to be right in).
Please feel free to consider me bowing out of this. I will not seek to explain or justify myself again over this matter to you. I thought what I thought. I explained. I clarified. Consider yourself the winner of the exchange or whatever. Doubt everything I said or my reasons for having said it. But it is at an end for me.
I was not that attached to this monster enough to invest any more energy in him. It got very old news very quickly.
-
How very condescending of you.
-
How very condescending of you.
No. Odeon. It is me bowing out of an argument with someone I respect. After trying to see her point and show that I am prepared to even consider what she is saying and compromising my own position, but that I still believe what I believe and why, to have her come back nicely and say effectively "No, you are wrong" and expect to to re-explain myself is not going anywhere.
It is hampered by the fact that I do not know what she is hoping for EXCEPT for a complete capitulation and me saying "I was wrong" for her to put it to bed.
So I have done that for her.
You may call that condescension. But let's be honest, you have been thinking and saying a LOT of really stupid shit in the last six months, so how much do I value your judgment of whether I am condescending or not and to whom?
-
It was committed by furniture. We know that furniture was the true threat. Ask Odeon. He will tell you.
The sarcasm is funny, but there is more to that statement than simple humor.
I Know I have missed a few things that have gone on here, but I have to ask you directly:
Why do you seem to be all over Odeon's lilly white arse like a hundred maggots in a bowl of sour rice, lately?
Give me a direction. What started this or, most importantly, what will it take to stop it?
I am not a mediator, but, fuck's sake, dude, get real. WTF is going on?
-
It was committed by furniture. We know that furniture was the true threat. Ask Odeon. He will tell you.
The sarcasm is funny, but there is more to that statement than simple humor.
I Know I have missed a few things that have gone on here, but I have to ask you directly:
Why do you seem to be all over Odeon's lilly white arse like a hundred maggots in a bowl of sour rice, lately?
Give me a direction. What started this or, most importantly, what will it take to stop it?
I am not a mediator, but, fuck's sake, dude, get real. WTF is going on?
Its okay i do not need mediator or such, but more than happy to summarise it.
Basically Odeon did not like me fighting with Zegh. He decided to interject himself by make a series of comments about me being "intellectually dishonest". He was fishing for a reaction from me.
He has that reaction now.
I naturally called him out and he was unable to back anything he accused me of. He tried a few other slights and accusations about me since then. Recently adding "bigot" to the list. Again, he can not back that either. Instead he Tried the novel approach of being both condescending and doubling down on ridiculous claims instead of justifying them. Now though he decided to spice things up, he is both blatantly lying about what I said and trying to substitute positions that are easier to argue than the positions I HAVE argued. The old bait and switch. Caught him each time but the fact he tried it three or four times is telling enough.
Odeon obviously had some sort of appreciation as to what my reaction may be before he prodded me and so therefore he likely has a plan as to how to resolve things. I am reacting on Odeon. I see no reason to resolve anything. This is the result of his actions and he wanted this. He has it now. He is likely very happy with it.
-
It was committed by furniture. We know that furniture was the true threat. Ask Odeon. He will tell you.
The sarcasm is funny, but there is more to that statement than simple humor.
I Know I have missed a few things that have gone on here, but I have to ask you directly:
Why do you seem to be all over Odeon's lilly white arse like a hundred maggots in a bowl of sour rice, lately?
Give me a direction. What started this or, most importantly, what will it take to stop it?
I am not a mediator, but, fuck's sake, dude, get real. WTF is going on?
Its okay i do not need mediator or such, but more than happy to summarise it.
Basically Odeon did not like me fighting with Zegh. He decided to interject himself by make a series of comments about me being "intellectually dishonest". He was fishing for a reaction from me.
He has that reaction now.
I naturally called him out and he was unable to back anything he accused me of. He tried a few other slights and accusations about me since then. Recently adding "bigot" to the list. Again, he can not back that either. Instead he Tried the novel approach of being both condescending and doubling down on ridiculous claims instead of justifying them. Now though he decided to spice things up, he is both blatantly lying about what I said and trying to substitute positions that are easier to argue than the positions I HAVE argued. The old bait and switch. Caught him each time but the fact he tried it three or four times is telling enough.
Odeon obviously had some sort of appreciation as to what my reaction may be before he prodded me and so therefore he likely has a plan as to how to resolve things. I am reacting on Odeon. I see no reason to resolve anything. This is the result of his actions and he wanted this. He has it now. He is likely very happy with it.
Kind of sorry to read your surmise.
I like you both.
Without reading over one hundred pages of argumentative text that I have not even skimmed, I will have a hard time in coming to a conclusion on my own.
So, another point; why were you "fighting with Zegh" (spelling is not correct)?
Sorry to be an asshole but please give me a Cliff Notes version. I do understand that such shortcuts often lead one astray, but please try. I would like to understand ALL this or at least find a way to follow my instinct and avoid it.
-
It was committed by furniture. We know that furniture was the true threat. Ask Odeon. He will tell you.
The sarcasm is funny, but there is more to that statement than simple humor.
I Know I have missed a few things that have gone on here, but I have to ask you directly:
Why do you seem to be all over Odeon's lilly white arse like a hundred maggots in a bowl of sour rice, lately?
Give me a direction. What started this or, most importantly, what will it take to stop it?
I am not a mediator, but, fuck's sake, dude, get real. WTF is going on?
Its okay i do not need mediator or such, but more than happy to summarise it.
Basically Odeon did not like me fighting with Zegh. He decided to interject himself by make a series of comments about me being "intellectually dishonest". He was fishing for a reaction from me.
He has that reaction now.
I naturally called him out and he was unable to back anything he accused me of. He tried a few other slights and accusations about me since then. Recently adding "bigot" to the list. Again, he can not back that either. Instead he Tried the novel approach of being both condescending and doubling down on ridiculous claims instead of justifying them. Now though he decided to spice things up, he is both blatantly lying about what I said and trying to substitute positions that are easier to argue than the positions I HAVE argued. The old bait and switch. Caught him each time but the fact he tried it three or four times is telling enough.
Odeon obviously had some sort of appreciation as to what my reaction may be before he prodded me and so therefore he likely has a plan as to how to resolve things. I am reacting on Odeon. I see no reason to resolve anything. This is the result of his actions and he wanted this. He has it now. He is likely very happy with it.
Kind of sorry to read your surmise.
I like you both.
Without reading over one hundred pages of argumentative text that I have not even skimmed, I will have a hard time in coming to a conclusion on my own.
So, another point; why were you "fighting with Zegh" (spelling is not correct)?
Sorry to be an asshole but please give me a Cliff Notes version. I do understand that such shortcuts often lead one astray, but please try. I would like to understand ALL this or at least find a way to follow my instinct and avoid it.
So long ago and he has not been on for a while. We have resolved things there in any case.
Basically Zegh and I had some difference about a couple of threads. One was on Feminism and the other on the Confederate Flag. I disagreed with him and he I and then he decided to up things and get personal with shots about my relationship with my ex-wife. I took the gloves off at that point and went at it with him.
Six months later he admitted he was in the wrong and said he did not want to carry things on a few months after that some pointed out that post and I said mea culpa.
Soon after he had a to do with Scrap and made some personal attacks on him and bailed.
-
How very condescending of you.
No. Odeon. It is me bowing out of an argument with someone I respect. After trying to see her point and show that I am prepared to even consider what she is saying and compromising my own position, but that I still believe what I believe and why, to have her come back nicely and say effectively "No, you are wrong" and expect to to re-explain myself is not going anywhere.
It is hampered by the fact that I do not know what she is hoping for EXCEPT for a complete capitulation and me saying "I was wrong" for her to put it to bed.
So I have done that for her.
You may call that condescension. But let's be honest, you have been thinking and saying a LOT of really stupid shit in the last six months, so how much do I value your judgment of whether I am condescending or not and to whom?
I have not. Your opinion differs from mine and I think it would be prudent of you to accept that.
Your many posts to back up your opinions were just that. Opinions. What normally happens with callouts here is that sooner or later, the peanut gallery will judge. In this case it din't, because--and let's be honest here--they are bored to death by our posts. I would like to say it's your posts, but that's probably not true. It's us both. So you keep thinking that you can somehow convince me. Or lately, calling me stuff since that former thing clearly didn't work. I don't mind a flame war but I have been hesitant to engage in one because I did consider you a friend. I still hesitate. My fingers itch at times, but I don't want to, not really.
And yes, I will call that condescension because that is how I read it. Again, it is an opinion, but I've had the opportunity to observe your behaviour and I think varies greatly depending on whom you are addressing. Your good book receives a wholly different treatment from your bad one.
In this case, you are being condescending and evasive. I'm betting that it is indeed dependent on whom you are addressing. You are pissed off still, and you are letting it show. It sort of reminds me of you and DFG, in a way.
And this is how I perceive you, lately. Would you have liked me to lie?
-
How very condescending of you.
No. Odeon. It is me bowing out of an argument with someone I respect. After trying to see her point and show that I am prepared to even consider what she is saying and compromising my own position, but that I still believe what I believe and why, to have her come back nicely and say effectively "No, you are wrong" and expect to to re-explain myself is not going anywhere.
It is hampered by the fact that I do not know what she is hoping for EXCEPT for a complete capitulation and me saying "I was wrong" for her to put it to bed.
So I have done that for her.
You may call that condescension. But let's be honest, you have been thinking and saying a LOT of really stupid shit in the last six months, so how much do I value your judgment of whether I am condescending or not and to whom?
I have not. Your opinion differs from mine and I think it would be prudent of you to accept that.
Your many posts to back up your opinions were just that. Opinions. What normally happens with callouts here is that sooner or later, the peanut gallery will judge. In this case it din't, because--and let's be honest here--they are bored to death by our posts. I would like to say it's your posts, but that's probably not true. It's us both. So you keep thinking that you can somehow convince me. Or lately, calling me stuff since that former thing clearly didn't work. I don't mind a flame war but I have been hesitant to engage in one because I did consider you a friend. I still hesitate. My fingers itch at times, but I don't want to, not really.
And yes, I will call that condescension because that is how I read it. Again, it is an opinion, but I've had the opportunity to observe your behaviour and I think varies greatly depending on whom you are addressing. Your good book receives a wholly different treatment from your bad one.
In this case, you are being condescending and evasive. I'm betting that it is indeed dependent on whom you are addressing. You are pissed off still, and you are letting it show. It sort of reminds me of you and DFG, in a way.
And this is how I perceive you, lately. Would you have liked me to lie?
I do not really care overly what you consider prudent or not. As for what is your opinion or not, being that I have seen both many provable lies and provable bait and switches, putting everything you say down to opinions....not feeling it.
I actually agree that the gallery is bored to death by our postings but then I am not posting necessarily for their judgment so I do not care much. I do not care to convince you and if you wish to flame me, you can. You bring this up every so often and my response is the same. Do what you will. I am not stopping you. I neither fear nor welcome you flaming me. I don't much care either way. If you believe it is a threat or something that concerns me, it really doesn't.
No it is not condescension nor evasive. I am being firm and making the wanted capitulation and explaining why. I had tried to compromise and say that it was not that interested and why I had thought what I thought and clearly this was not enough for Hyke she wanted press it and dispute everything I said each time I said it. I was not that invested in this monster.
How this becomes evasive is completely beyond me and I do not believe it is condescending either. Not that it was to you in any case.
As to whether I want you to lie? What, again? Can if you like. I will likely pick it up again and expose it again. Just like the lies in my signature.
You do what you do, I am not beholden to you nor you to me. No idea why you are asking for my opinion on how I think you should treat me at this juncture?
-
Here's the thing: you haven't proved anything. I have to admit, I am ever so slightly offended by you continuing to say that I have lied or baited you. I have not, other than in obviously trollish purposes (I trust you to see the difference, but maybe you can't).
But fine. Let's just do this. Fucking idiot.,
-
Here's the thing: you haven't proved anything. I have to admit, I am ever so slightly offended by you continuing to say that I have lied or baited you. I have not, other than in obviously trollish purposes (I trust you to see the difference, but maybe you can't).
But fine. Let's just do this. Fucking idiot.,
LYING
Sometimes we simply hold differing opinions - not necessarily "wrong".
But then they are lies. It is usually found in arguments where the position of the liar is weak and needs padding
As with Odeon
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23727.msg1120387.html#msg1120387
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23712.msg1120296.html#msg1120296
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23716.msg1122811.html#msg1122811
Switch and baiting
I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help.
I don't blame Muslims though and YOU know I don't blame Muslims. I told you already, I am not playing bait and switch with you Odeon. I blame radicalised Muslim Extremists. That is NOT Muslims.
It is people with a completely different mentality. In the same way a moderate weekly church going Christian is hardly the same as Westboro Baptists. But you know that already, right? :dunce:
Its weak to keep trying for this bait and switch isn't it , Odeon? Yup, I thought so too.
In fact, you still have to present proof for a ban to work. Any proof. Numbers, ideas, anything...? Don't be shy.
Do I have to present proof of a ban to work? I do not think I suggested a ban? I thought I simply supported in principle a temporary freeze whilst vetting procedures are improved?
What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid.
I do not give a damn about that position. I never suggested nor argued that position and I do not care to start.
Oh I know this is another bait and switch tactic. :dunce:
Banning Muslims at the US borders is the Trump suggestion or policy on his website or campaign book that he made (that I vouched no opinion on) after suggesting his idea (that I happened to agree in principle with) about placing a temporary freeze on US Muslim immigrants whilst he fixes the subpar vetting systems used to vet radicalised Muslim extremists from Moderate Muslim immigrants.
I also know that YOU know which is and is not my position. You are both being an idiot and dishonest. Why? :dunce:
Here is more lying....yay!!!
It is, however, bigoted to blame the religion for the actions of a few, and while you might not like being called a bigot, it's well within the definition.
I have blamed the religion for the actions of a few have I? Odeon why are you lying again? Care to show where I have said that I blame the entire religion for the actions of a few? I know you can't, just as you have. In fact I have gone out of my way to be absolutely crystal clear that I distinguish Moderate Muslims from radicalised Muslim extremists and have never blamed one for the other.
So you are down to straight out lying.
Why are you lying. Odeon? Why aren't you backing yourself instead? :dunce:
AND
You say the FBI are monitoring a thousand (you started with 900 but whatever) potential groups or individuals.
Okay are you a liar?
Straight up. You just said that I stated "FBI are monitoring a thousand" That is YOUR words quoted above. That is what you said that I said.
Yup, and if we tack this on to the nearly 1000 US based Islamic extremist cases that are currently active investigations and the fact that both Omar Mateen and the San Bernadino whilst referred and investigated were ultimately dropped as active cases for investigation....yes they definitely need an overhaul......
Look at what is bolded above. DID I say the FBI is monitoring nearly 1000 US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases or that they are monitoring a thousand? Its one or the other.
Okay so how many exactly? Well Director Comey said 900 active US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases. So is 900 cases NEARLY 1000? YES. Is it ACTUALLY 1000? No.
So let's discuss why you just lied. Is your argument THAT weak you have to rely on lies and switch and bait attempts to give it legs? (Rhetorical question, obviously) :dunce:
AND
How many nutcases with guns do you suppose they are they missing out on? Nationals who can buy the equipment they need legally and then kill gays, police officers or just some kids and teachers at a school? Remind me, how many gun-related homicides are there in the US every year?
900? 1000?
And none of the above means "ignore the radicalised nutcases". It means "don't be a stupid bigoted idiot, try something that can actually make a difference."
This is nothing to do with agreeing in principle with the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration whilst the vetting system to distinguish between moderate Muslim and radicalised Muslim extremist is introduced.
Nothing AT ALL. You get that. There is nothing to suggest that the gun laws you believe may have a hope in Hell of getting introduced will stop radical Muslim extremists from committing these horribly destructive acts as seen in the examples I quoted already.
You can get as offended as you like. Probably better not lying or bait and switching in the first place than risk doing so, being callout on it and then allowing yourself to get offended.
Cause and effect. You help choose the conclusion. You have agency.
-
I have not lied, nor did I any bait and switch, whatever that is in this context.
My opinions differ from yours, though, and they differ a lot. You may not like that I called you a bigot or that I demanded you to prove that a ban on Muslims would help anything, but it goes with the territory. You support it, therefore you need to explain what it does and how. I don't give a shit if it offends you to be called a bigot or if you have a Muslim friend (what a fucking pathetic excuse), you need to be able to explain the views you support.
Or accept that you are, in fact, a bigot. There is not a shred of proof for the bigotry you advocate but plenty of proof and precedent to suggest the opposite.
-
I have not lied, nor did I any bait and switch, whatever that is in this context.
My opinions differ from yours, though, and they differ a lot. You may not like that I called you a bigot or that I demanded you to prove that a ban on Muslims would help anything, but it goes with the territory. You support it, therefore you need to explain what it does and how. I don't give a shit if it offends you to be called a bigot or if you have a Muslim friend (what a fucking pathetic excuse), you need to be able to explain the views you support.
Or accept that you are, in fact, a bigot. There is not a shred of proof for the bigotry you advocate but plenty of proof and precedent to suggest the opposite.
Whilst I am not a bigot, you are either an idiot or a liar. I am sorry but the option to simply have misunderstood or been ignorant, has stopped being an option.
"I did not bait and switch and I did not lie" as a retort to my showing you evidence of doing exactly that, is not a winning argument. Worse still, because I spelled it out, you can't state you are unaware of what I mean.
It does imply a few things. If you went to the efforts to try and replace my argument for other arguments, that you must see how pass weak your positions are. Resorting to lies and misrepresentations.
It also implies that you are unlikely to be able to either contest anything I have said nor support anything you have said. Flaming, denials and unfounded and unsupported accusations are all the is it in intellectual arsenal.
It also shows to me you are unable to look at things objectively.
You think I am offended by you? God, why? What do you consider offensive about you? Do you have ANYTHING remotely rational to contribute?
-
I have not lied, nor did I any bait and switch, whatever that is in this context.
My opinions differ from yours, though, and they differ a lot. You may not like that I called you a bigot or that I demanded you to prove that a ban on Muslims would help anything, but it goes with the territory. You support it, therefore you need to explain what it does and how. I don't give a shit if it offends you to be called a bigot or if you have a Muslim friend (what a fucking pathetic excuse), you need to be able to explain the views you support.
Or accept that you are, in fact, a bigot. There is not a shred of proof for the bigotry you advocate but plenty of proof and precedent to suggest the opposite.
You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:
THIS is a lie. The reason it is a lie is because I never had that position. I never supported it. So when you say "You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders" and it is provably untrue, then you are a liar. Its a false accusation and pretty fucking simple.
And now, in this latest marvel of yours, you are comparing Muslims to Ebola in a nice roundabout way. That's right, isn't it? It's what you are saying.
No, under no honest reading could this assessment be made.
I said a disease "like Ebola". So from the outset it is not Ebola. I compared the disease to the ideology NOT people NOR the religion. I compared radical Muslim extremists to people infected by the ideology and Moderate Muslims as being healthy.
Nowhere did I compare Ebola with Muslims. So you lied again.
It is, however, bigoted to blame the religion for the actions of a few, and while you might not like being called a bigot, it's well within the definition.
Where did I blame the religion for the actions of a few? Oh that's right.....NOWHERE. You lied again. This is the problem. I know it would be a whole lot easier for you if I actually did, but pretending I did and criticising for doing what I did not do, is lying by default. That does not reflect on my conduct, just yours.
You say the FBI are monitoring a thousand (you started with 900 but whatever) potential groups or individuals.
Helps if I do not have what I ACTUALLY said:
Yup, and if we tack this on to the nearly 1000 US based Islamic extremist cases that are currently active investigations and the fact that both Omar Mateen and the San Bernadino whilst referred and investigated were ultimately dropped as active cases for investigation....yes they definitely need an overhaul......
Did I say 1000 or did I say nearly 1000? Is 900 nearly 1000? Yes. Is 900 actually 1000? No. Who lied.....again.
So do not for a moment say you have not lied. You have and you do.
But what about those bait and switch arguments? Those attempts to switch more difficult positions I took with easier to defend positions that I did not make?
I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help.
Did I blame Muslims? Did I blame radicalised Muslim extremists? Do I blame Christians for picketing Funerals of American soldiers killed overseas OR the Westboro Baptists? Do I make the distinctions? Do I say that they share the same ideology?
Again...did I blame "the Muslims"? No, and it is dishonest every time you say so.
What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid.
I never had that position. My position was placing a freeze on Muslim immigrants. That was the initial position with Donald Trump. The newer position you try to replace with the one I actually agree with, I have not got an opinion on. I let you know first time you try to say I "had his position wrong". I will not consider or argue his newer position about banning all Muslims from the US border or whatever it is. I don't give a damn about it. I sure as fuck won't have you try to bait and switch it and pretend it is my position to defend. It isn't, never was, and you know that.
So don't pretend you don't lie nor bait and switch. You do. Its dishonest, blatant and piss weak. I know you do this because you want me to be a bigot and you want your positions to be stronger. But they aren't and my positions aren't bigoted. You are just piss weak and emotional. That is why you lie and bait and switch. Its all you have.
-
<snip>
Okay so logically we need to explore the possibility the maybe the FBI is battling to contain such problems in US. Certainly the fact that they questioned Mateen twice and also that they have 900 active US based investigations supports this.....logically.
<snip>
You support Trump and Trump advocates banning *all* Muslims at the border, a view that is bigoted to say the least. Ergo, you are a bigot. You can't support a bigot's bigoted views without being a bigot yourself.
You have yet to give any kind of indication of how this would help anything. I'm waiting but not holding my breath.
"A disease like Ebola" is splitting hairs, which you know perfectly well. I very much doubt anyone who reads that particular post will miss your intent. Because you also advocate banning Muslims at the borders until the FBI figures it out, it follows that it's the kind of disease control you suggest in your piss-poor hypothetical.
You really need to stay away from the hypotheticals. They make you look stupid. Not that it's not true but you might want to avoid making it so obvious.
Oh, and from the above it also follows what and whom you blame. You're not saying it out loud because that would be so obviously bigoted that even you couldn't weasel your way out of it but considering what you support and why, and adding the Ebola hypothetical, well...
And Trump's *initial* position was this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-responds-to-criticism-over-banning-muslims-from-us-i-dont-care-a6764291.html
-
<snip>
Okay so logically we need to explore the possibility the maybe the FBI is battling to contain such problems in US. Certainly the fact that they questioned Mateen twice and also that they have 900 active US based investigations supports this.....logically.
<snip>
You support Trump and Trump advocates banning *all* Muslims at the border, a view that is bigoted to say the least. Ergo, you are a bigot. You can't support a bigot's bigoted views without being a bigot yourself.
You have yet to give any kind of indication of how this would help anything. I'm waiting but not holding my breath.
"A disease like Ebola" is splitting hairs, which you know perfectly well. I very much doubt anyone who reads that particular post will miss your intent. Because you also advocate banning Muslims at the borders until the FBI figures it out, it follows that it's the kind of disease control you suggest in your piss-poor hypothetical.
You really need to stay away from the hypotheticals. They make you look stupid. Not that it's not true but you might want to avoid making it so obvious.
Oh, and from the above it also follows what and whom you blame. You're not saying it out loud because that would be so obviously bigoted that even you couldn't weasel your way out of it but considering what you support and why, and adding the Ebola hypothetical, well...
And Trump's *initial* position was this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-responds-to-criticism-over-banning-muslims-from-us-i-dont-care-a6764291.html
No, you silly fucker.
You support Trump and Trump advocates banning *all* Muslims at the border, a view that is bigoted to say the least. Ergo, you are a bigot. You can't support a bigot's bigoted views without being a bigot yourself.
Are you trying to tell me what I believe?
No it is OBVIOUSLY a bit of a problem when I have never said that I support banning all Muslims at the border. It is more of a problem when I have stated exactly what I was supporting in principle. Especially when what you WANT me to support, I don't and will not endorse for your benefit.
Now there is about two options, either I have had it wrong all along and Donald trump never had that position, in which case the position you want me to support is different to any position I have apparently wrongly attributed to him (in which case I have not endorsed the position of banning all Muslims at the borders) OR I am right and it is a previous position he has had (in which case I have not endorsed the position of banning all Muslims at the borders).
There is no third option. The "you may have been ignorant in what I meant" option has left the station.
So which was it of those two options? Well as listed above the result doesn't matter. It still doesn't have me backing the position you WANT me to back. "You support Trump and Trump advocates banning *all* Muslims at the border"
So as YOU made that claim, YOU get to back that claim.
As whether I misunderstood or misheard what Trump said, its a possibility. Maybe instead of relying on media. Maybe it is best understanding that I know what I think or believe is what I think or believe and trying to tell me what I believe based on fuck all is fucking idiotic.
Then again maybe instead of asking a UK media publication asking his National Media Spokesperson, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuMKoBrHiCQ
may be a better idea (She mentions the stance at that time from 1:58 - 2:48)
So listening to her and seeing what I had been agreeing in principle with sounds closer to exactly what I fucking said and nothing like what YOU fucking said I supported.
Interesting, huh? Kind of like you are completely full of shit, huh?
"B....b....b....but a UK paper said..."
And Trump's *initial* position was this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-responds-to-criticism-over-banning-muslims-from-us-i-dont-care-a6764291.html
There is a reason they write something untrue about Trump and most rational people understand that the media is not exactly doing Trump favours. In fact the Press is actively trying to make Hillary look as close to human as they can make her and Trump look like the devil.
Tell him ex-Democrat political strategist, Pat Candell
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/08/01/pat-caddell-on-cooked-reuters-poll-never-in-my-life-have-i-seen-a-news-organization-do-something-so-dishonest/
So what else?
You support Trump and Trump advocates.....
How the hell can anyone even consider voting for Trump?
I am glad I am not in America. Who are in the running Socialist Sanders? No thanks. What about Hillary? Nope. She is at LEAST on par with....Trump. Trump is a moron.
So Marco Rubio? Ted Cruz? Ugh!
Trump is a blowhard, arrogant, boorish, entitled, opinionated, idiot who gambles with his and other people's money and is happy to risk a company or personal bankrupt, he is VERY unsuited to being a President.
HOWEVER
Hilary is worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
Liar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY
Criminal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueDWLP2nOtU
Corrupt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj2UKZmCXOw
Personal emails for state business?
Trump is awful. Hilary is evil.
I support Trump? Interesting point of view.
Next!
You can't support a bigot's bigoted views without being a bigot yourself
No shit! Have you made a point? No you haven't. Why not? You have not identified any bigoted point of view that I ACTUALLY hold and tell me why it IS bigoted. You have not identified who I am bigoted towards and where I have said bigoted things to them. I CAN hold any position with any bigot IF it is NOT bigoted and not be a bigot.
If I share a love of painting like Adolf Hitler did and NOT be a bigot. I could even agree with his determination on the merits of different artist styles. That won't make me a bigot.
You have yet to give any kind of indication of how this would help anything. I'm waiting but not holding my breath.
Why would I need to point this out. I agree with the idea in principle. Its not my idea. It would be up to the originator and his cronies to develop it into a fully developed strategic plan and then I will review it and see whether I think it will work or whether it is better or worse than the simple idea that I DID agree in principle with.
You are asking the wrong question from the wrong person. I told you this many times already, and as I said, you cannot feign ignorance any more. That train has left the station. You are either dishonest or stupid.
"A disease like Ebola" is splitting hairs, which you know perfectly well. I very much doubt anyone who reads that particular post will miss your intent. Because you also advocate banning Muslims at the borders until the FBI figures it out, it follows that it's the kind of disease control you suggest in your piss-poor hypothetical.
Repeating a lie is not making it any more true. Because "I advocate Banning Muslims at the border" OR do I support in principle the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration to US"? Two different positions. One I have supported in principle and the other I have not. More bait and switch, huh? What exactly is the "kind of disease control"? Be specific.
I have made very clear in this analogy (and we KNOW that analogies are not comparable in every conceivable way but rather, in a specific and narrow sense. An analogy does NOT say "x is like y in every way" or "x is y" it says "x is like y in z way". Trying to find other ways apart from z to show x is not like y at all is disingenuous and comes either from a position of stupidity or dishonesty) that the threat of the Ebola like disease in this analogy is LIKE the the threat of the radical Muslim extremist ideology. I have not said it is like Ebola nor have I compared Muslims to Ebola and only an idiot would think so.
I do not need to avoid hypotheticals. My hypotheticals are fine.
Oh, and from the above it also follows what and whom you blame. You're not saying it out loud because that would be so obviously bigoted that even you couldn't weasel your way out of it but considering what you support and why, and adding the Ebola hypothetical, well...
Its pretty fucking clear from everything I have posted, who I blame. Radical Muslim Extremists. I have posted this a lot. An awful lot. Would you like me to pull quotes of how many times I have blamed them? Of course it is fucking clear.
I know that does not work with your narrative and you would prefer for me to blame someone else, for me to be the bigot you desperately want to promote me as.
Here is your chance - BACK YOURSELF - show where I have been bigoted to any group. class, race or gender. No more evading. Back yourself. No "Well I read this in this disingenuous way so as to infer the opposite to what you have said..."
No, you made the claim. It was a big claim. You doubled down. You have lied consistently and tried to bait and switch in order to replace positions I hold with other positions I do not hold, in order to defend positions you feel are stronger.
Enough bullshit. Back yourself Odeon. For once. You called me a bigot, back yourself......or admit the lie.
-
Supporting a bigot makes you a bigot. Told you so. Do you have problems following me? Should I use smaller words?
It's interesting that your whole proof of *not* being a bigot seems to be that only the Muslim immigrants would be banned. In what world is that less bigoted? The same where I would willingly watch through your silly videos when this discussion was never about Hillary? There is no proof whatsoever that banning Muslims, all of them or immigrants, would help anything except making Muslims in the US and abroad angrier than they already are.
You are what you are.
-
Supporting a bigot makes you a bigot. Told you so. Do you have problems following me? Should I use smaller words?
It's interesting that your whole proof of *not* being a bigot seems to be that only the Muslim immigrants would be banned. In what world is that less bigoted? The same where I would willingly watch through your silly videos when this discussion was never about Hillary? There is no proof whatsoever that banning Muslims, all of them or immigrants, would help anything except making Muslims in the US and abroad angrier than they already are.
You are what you are.
Hilarious.
Supporting a bigot makes you a bigot. Told you so. Do you have problems following me? Should I use smaller words?
Step this way Odeon and mind the piles of crap you left on your last trip through
It's interesting that your whole proof of *not* being a bigot seems to be that only the Muslim immigrants would be banned. In what world is that less bigoted? The same where I would willingly watch through your silly videos when this discussion was never about Hillary? There is no proof whatsoever that banning Muslims, all of them or immigrants, would help anything except making Muslims in the US and abroad angrier than they already are.
Yes angry immigrants is terrible. In fact I think that should be the justification to let everyone in when you cannot vet them well. In fact why even bother vetting them at all? Imagine if you DID find something in their records? You may have to refuse them. Refusing immigrants is bigoted.
Or perhaps it does not matter if a country's immigration laws do not meet with the potential immigrant's personal standards? Perhaps the illegal immigrants and refugees coming to Australia are not too enamored with the detention centres they are placed into for years at a time? Perhaps? Do you know how much that matters? Not at all. Australia's security is more important than their specific wants, and it is not bigotry to make decisions on what is best for the country, even if it is not to the standard of any immigrant or groups of immigrants wants. The country's interests come first.
Perhaps IF a vetting system is not up to scratch then perhaps the mere idea of bringing it up to scratch before you bring in immigrants that the system cannot vet is okay? Perhaps as an idea it is fine. I would likewise say that I would think that agreeing with people that recognise the recent sudden increase levels of rapes and sexual assaults at music festivals and swimming pools in Sweden is good and them signalling increased pro-active approaches to stop this in its tracks in is something in principle I will support in principle. However, like the temporary freeze on Muslim immigrants concept of Trump's, I am happy to wait to see what those methods are and how they implement and make these efforts viable, before I commit to more than just the idea in principle. It is interesting to note in the example of the Swedish swimming pool, they had "Groping Guards" - THAT was their solution and it was an abject failure. In the Swedish music festival they gave everyone don't grope bracelets. That unsurprisingly made no difference in the level of rapes and sexual assaults...can you guess what the perpetrators wore WHILST they sexually assaulted and raped women? As to whether the immigration ban could or would work? I don't know and you know what? Its not up to me to know. I agree with the concept in principle and when or if he develops it into something he wishes to implement, I may or may not agree with it in practice too.
As for silly video of Hillary's? Like there was ever a want for you to do so? As if I was making any kind of case about Hillary? Look I understand you are getting too emotional to follow what I said and so I will relay it again without the triggering videos as they were not what I was evidencing. Please pay attention.
One thing is not like the others is it A, B or C (I will underline and highlight the relevant bits)
A
You support Trump and Trump advocates banning *all* Muslims at the border, a view that is bigoted to say the least. Ergo, you are a bigot. You can't support a bigot's bigoted views without being a bigot yourself.
B
I am glad I am not in America. Who are in the running Socialist Sanders? No thanks. What about Hillary? Nope. She is at LEAST on par with....Trump. Trump is a moron.
So Marco Rubio? Ted Cruz? Ugh!
Trump is a blowhard, arrogant, boorish, entitled, opinionated, idiot who gambles with his and other people's money and is happy to risk a company or personal bankrupt, he is VERY unsuited to being a President.
[snipped Triggering videos]
Trump is awful. Hilary is evil.
C
Supporting a bigot makes you a bigot. Told you so. Do you have problems following me?....
So.....have you worked out your problem? If not I will re-iterate this point. I could love Adolf Hitler's paintings and agree with his tastes and find merit in his choice of styles. That does not mean that I have to agree with his every thought or deed. It sure as Hell does not mean that if I agree that the President under Title 8 US Code 1182 can place a freeze on immigration for any class of foreigners that he believes is a threat and I believe that Americans have every right to protect themselves from any threat they believe is valid, this is not bigoted. I would say the same if Indonesia was to say tomorrow that they are placing a freeze on Australians travelling to Indonesia. I may disagree with their reasons but it is their right.
In Australia we mitigate our immigrant risks by three ways: Great border control, tight controls for accepting immigrants legally into Australia, and if people come in illegally we throw them in detention centres until we can vet them properly - this is not bigoted either.
So far you have yet to make a case for me being bigoted. You say that Trump is bigoted and that because I agree in principle with a way to improve and manage his national security better that I am a bigot. That does not compute. Who am I bigoted against and how? Again, I do not care who you think Donald Trump is bigoted against I want you to make a case against me. You made the claim you get to back it.
See I get what has happened and I wonder whether you realise. What you are doing is emotional kneejerking. I am really curious to see what these triggers are for you.
I agree in principle with a concept of Donald Trump and suddenly, in your little mind I am the henchman of the nefarious supervillian Trump. I am setting the flying monkeys onto all Muslims around the world. I am secret encouraging Trump to use the death ray instead of ransoming the world for 19 trillion dollars. I am taking short breaks in my schedule to type Odeon messages.
But I am not really. In truth all I am doing is supporting an idea of allowing America to upgrade their National Security to protect their citizens and allow after a freeze in immigration, to Muslim immigrants wanting to immigrate to US (Freeze would not stop them immigrating elsewhere, I am sure they could immigrate to Sweden for the short term), the Muslim immigrants would be able to immigrate with the knowledge that there will be the best chance of them NOT immigrating with the worst elements they are fleeing from.
Sounds like a win. They could try their luck and come to Australia by boat but they would end up in Detention Centres. I reckon it may be worth the wait to be honest. The good ones probably will not mind the better security processes. The bad ones would have to go elsewhere....perhaps Sweden.
You going to address the lies and bait and switching or the accusations of me being a bigot? Or bloody anything?
-
This thread was about a German shooting some Germans and yet it is filled with anti-muslim postings.
ISIS main ambition is to end the grey area between muslims and the rest of the world. They want a world where muslims are forced to choose their way rather than the western multi-culturalism. Looks like they've done their work on some of the more weak minded on the earth.
Europeans, on the whole, have lived with this kind of idealism for centuries. You don't let it win by spreading bigotry. You win by not giving it the oxygen of publicity.
You know something? The only reason I still read these dumb, racist, bigotted posts is because I can't fiond the ignore function on this fucking forum.
-
This thread was about a German shooting some Germans and yet it is filled with anti-muslim postings.
ISIS main ambition is to end the grey area between muslims and the rest of the world. They want a world where muslims are forced to choose their way rather than the western multi-culturalism. Looks like they've done their work on some of the more weak minded on the earth.
Europeans, on the whole, have lived with this kind of idealism for centuries. You don't let it win by spreading bigotry. You win by not giving it the oxygen of publicity.
You know something? The only reason I still read these dumb, racist, bigotted posts is because I can't fiond the ignore function on this fucking forum.
You know what the fact that you read what I wrote and believe that it is bigoted makes it thoroughly understandable to me that you are unable to ignore the posts and proves your own weak-mindedness.
Racist? Hmmm... Here is a quick test. What race is Muslim?
(http://muslimvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/0Indonesia-Muslims_deepchi_3314678955_1.jpg)
(http://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/default/files/styles/main_image_article_page/public/main-images/000_DV2096098.jpg)
(http://media.worldbulletin.net/250x190/2011/10/17/sancak.jpg)
(http://media.worldbulletin.net/news/2014/07/28/guney-sudan-bayram.jpg)
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02907/Jordan-Horner_2907951b.jpg)
Yes, if 'Muslim" IS a race then you get to choose which race is Muslim. You get one pick.
Too hard? Did not mean racist? Were talking shit from your soapbox? I do get it. It was pretty dumb, huh?
Here is the problem. I am NOT anti-Muslim. I WILL respond to anyone calling me anti-Muslim or racist or bigoted and the postcount discussing this to increase will occur. Cause and effect. You are actually contributing to what you wish to avoid. Far from starving it of oxygen you are fanning the flames for all you are worth.
I have been very clear to make a very clear distinction between radical Muslim extremists and Muslims. It is the same in my mind as the difference between Westboro Baptists and Christians. What I will not do is be put off pointing the finger at radical Muslims extremists whenever they do something shitty, for fear of some weak-minded asshat, like your good self, from getting excited and trying to tell me my negative views about radical Muslims extremists MUST apply to Muslims as a group, and on the whole, and so therefore must be apologised for or disclaimed in the right way to absolve myself from any suggestion of bigotry, an ignorant moral outrage expert may make of me.
I would rather just tell you to go fuck yourself. I understand you wanted to impress me with your little moral righteous indignation, but you have not read and comprehended enough to form any kind of rational conclusion. It doesn't impress. If it helps, it probably excites Odeon though.
-
You are a bigot. Don't like it? You can change. Admit that Trump is out of line, that stopping Muslims at the border is utterly useless and bigoted, designed to win over rednecks and KKK types.
But you won't, of course, which makes you an idiot in addition to the bigotry.
-
You are a bigot. Don't like it? You can change. Admit that Trump is out of line, that stopping Muslims at the border is utterly useless and bigoted, designed to win over rednecks and KKK types.
But you won't, of course, which makes you an idiot in addition to the bigotry.
You are a rapist. Don't like it? You can change. Admit that Sweden is the rape capital of the world, that men from that area of the world are world class sexual predators, and you are a man from that part of the world.
But you won't admit it of course which makes you a rapist as well as a terrible debater.
-
Its a funny thing emotional reasoning especially when it is disguised or camouflaged by moral righteousness. Meaning of course that those who are deeming themselves to be arguing from a position of moral superiority (the same often applies in respect to those deeming themselves arguing from an intellectually superior standpoint) often are really just making emotional arguments.
Once rational critique comes into play the emotional reasoner usually is unable to make anything resembling reasoned arguments. Often leaving themselves with only their soapbox, the illusion of moral righteousness and the hope that their virtue signalling will be seen but other emotional reasoners to take up their charge.
I have a good idea of where Odeon may be for example on the issue of abortion. Now in this, he will register that the Pro-choice view of abortion gives the Mother autonomy on her body BUT the Father and Baby (fetus) do not get the same degree of rights. Their rights are superseded by the Mother's rights. Now this is a widely held belief and on a non-emotional perspective it can be argued that in this positioning of rights and dealing with this issue, unfortunately unfairly or not, not everyone can hold the same rights. Yes the Father may want to be a Dad and see the baby born and raise the baby, and yes it is unfair that this will not be able to be accommodated BUT to accommodate him and his wants would be at the expense of the Mother. Someone is the loser in this situation and as unfair or even heart-breaking as it is, it is bad luck for the Father.
Now I dare say Odeon will completely miss the point and indeed the importance of this analogy and probably say I am comparing Muslims to abortion or suggesting Muslims ought to be aborted. This is precisely what I was saying about emotional reasoners:
will not read what is being said and the little that is said will be filtered through their pathetic emotional filter and is given to misrepresentation.
The reality is that sometimes things are unfair or unjust to a person or a group of people without being bigoted. Sometimes the outcome is unfavourable or the result is not equal but the intent or the premise is not bigoted.
If the Muslim immigration freeze was placed on Muslim immigration then would some decent Muslim immigrants be affected? Yes and no. It may well mean that a Muslim immigrant or a family of Muslim immigrants with their heart set on immigrating to America in exclusion to all other countries, may be thwarted temporarily. The disclaimer of course is that this would be temporary and would not also exclude immigrating anywhere else. (It goes without saying that MOST of these potential Muslim immigrants would be fine and decent people).
Now the argument is that like the rights of Father in the example I used to display a superseding of rights, these rights of Muslim immigrants would be superseded (though in a far less permanent way) by the rights of the US citizens. Again, like the example I used, it is not a case of bigotry or intolerance at the individuals or group of people that it affects but rather that the outcome is unfavourable to a group and they would be at the receiving end.
Of course there is another aspect in this, how many immigrants is America OBLIGED to take in? What is teh US morally obliged to? Switzerland is actively turning Muslims away and Austria seems to want to follow suit. At what point is US allowed to say "No I think we will reduce or limit the Muslim immigrants in". For what reason too? Who do they answer to and what would be considered compelling for what reason? Is it enough that the rates of Muslim refugees making it through the vetting process that are discovered with tuberculosis is 25% of some Muslim refugees populations enough to slow things up? What about the outbreak of Measles bought in through infected Muslim Refugee populations? What about the recognition of 900 active cases of Domestic US based Islamic extremism? Is THAT enough to give the US pause to think?
The emotional reasoner will say "Don't be mean. Don't think on things. Any examination on the impact of bringing Muslims into America during times where radical Muslim extremism is prolific, is bigoted".
No it isn't and was never.
If people wish to reason that there is no issue worth considering and that things are going smooth and peachy, I disagree. I am not repelled by their opinion but I disagree. Therefore if someone recognises the issue that I see (radical Muslim extremism and its impact globally and its threat to US) then I am likely to in principle respect their want to address these threats. I am more than happy to consider other solutions too.
As mentioned before, I see very little difference in effect, Australia's hardline stance on illegal and refugee immigrants and this proposed stance.
Australia will capture and intern illegal immigrants and refugees off-shore in detention centres until they can be verified and resettled. The proposed US option is to hold off on allowing Muslim immigrants in temporarily until they are able to scrutinise better.
Putting it in real terms a Muslim immigrant trying to boat over to Australia compared to trying to apply for refugee status in America are both going to be kept off-shore temporarily and not allowed to resettle in the the host country. The only difference is that the one trying to immigrate to America would be able to apply to resettle elsewhere for the limited time the freeze was on, whereas the one that tried in Australia would be kept a couple of year in a detention centre before being cleared for resettling.
Border protection and national security are entirely the responsibility of the country enforcing their measures. They will be different and I believe that they have a right to identify and address whatever threat they deem appropriate. Doing so is not in itself bigoted.
No matter what emotional reasoners will say.
-
Keep deflecting. Bigot.
-
Keep deflecting. Bigot.
There is no deflection, Rapist
Are you able to back the bigotry claim yet? What about the deflection claim? No, I did not think so
-
The only reason I still read these dumb, racist, bigotted posts is because I can't fiond the ignore function on this fucking forum.
The ignore function is manual.
-
Keep deflecting. Bigot.
There is no deflection, Rapist
Are you able to back the bigotry claim yet? What about the deflection claim? No, I did not think so
Haven't seen you back up anything yet. I see you're getting desperate, though, and I love it. You're eating out of my hand. Tasty, isn't it?
-
Keep deflecting. Bigot.
There is no deflection, Rapist
Are you able to back the bigotry claim yet? What about the deflection claim? No, I did not think so
Haven't seen you back up anything yet. I see you're getting desperate, though, and I love it. You're eating out of my hand. Tasty, isn't it?
This "I know what you are but what am I" line of defence is pretty unimpressive, Rapist.
I have absolutely backed all I need to back and it is YOU that makes the claims you are unable to back. Well that and lie and bait and switch. Emotional reasoning will do that.
As to who is eating out of who's hand, if that is helping you get through the day, keep believing that.
Are you actually going to make a case for me being a bigot or are you simply devolving into ridiculous control fantasies? If the latter, what then?
As to me? I am thinking this forum may benefit from Trump articles. Whilst I am indifferent to the guy, you seem to really like him. Yes I reckon we could make this a pro-Trump forum.
-
Funny how you seem to think that opposing bigotry in whatever form it comes equals "emotional reasoning". Me, I happen to think that banning a group of people from entering the US for no reason at all other than a confused millionaire's vote fishing is upsetting, just as I think blaming Mexicans and suggesting a wall between the US and Mexico for those same reasons is upsetting.
It's not what we were told America stands for. It's not compatible with the ideals they helped originate and then signed with a whole bunch of other countries after WW2, the idea being to learn from recent history and make sure it doesn't repeat itself.
This, of course, is where you inject your BS about the rights of countries to stop anyone they want at their borders, an utterly irrelevant deflection to avoid having to defend the obvious bigotry in the proposal, and actually quite sad. I really did think you were smarter than that, a few months ago. Obviously you aren't.
If it's emotional reasoning to join the choir in pointing out the eerie similarities between Hitler in the early 30s and Trump today, then I'm fine with it.
-
Funny how you seem to think that opposing bigotry in whatever form it comes equals "emotional reasoning". Me, I happen to think that banning a group of people from entering the US for no reason at all other than a confused millionaire's vote fishing is upsetting, just as I think blaming Mexicans and suggesting a wall between the US and Mexico for those same reasons is upsetting.
It's not what we were told America stands for. It's not compatible with the ideals they helped originate and then signed with a whole bunch of other countries after WW2, the idea being to learn from recent history and make sure it doesn't repeat itself.
This, of course, is where you inject your BS about the rights of countries to stop anyone they want at their borders, an utterly irrelevant deflection to avoid having to defend the obvious bigotry in the proposal, and actually quite sad. I really did think you were smarter than that, a few months ago. Obviously you aren't.
If it's emotional reasoning to join the choir in pointing out the eerie similarities between Hitler in the early 30s and Trump today, then I'm fine with it.
I do not think....
that opposing bigotry in whatever form it comes equals "emotional reasoning".
In fact I never said, implied, inferred or suggested that.
So Why are you lying....again?
Are illegal immigrants illegal? By definition? Who would a wall keep out? What is its reason if you drop the emotional reasoning and claims of bigotry? Do you know what Rape trees are Odeon? Do you know why they are prolific in the area between Mexico and America? Look it up Odeon.
Do you know how many women who are illegal immigrants get raped on the trip over and who by? Do you know how many illegal immigrants are left behind to die if they cannot "keep up"?
Do you know about the other ways that the illegal immigrants are preyed on?
Odeon do you in your emotional reaction jump straight to racism as an easy default? Border security is border security. I do not imagine that a big wall will keep out all illegal immigrants. But it will sure cut down on the people coming into America illegally and cut down on the lawlessness and incidences of drug running, preying on illegal immigrants and murder coming from the Mexican cartels south of the border.
This is completely incompatible with your argument of treaties. It is foolish to pretend that it is. No treaties would be broken. People would still be able to move between countries. The difference is that the illegal immigrants would find it more difficult to come in "illegally". (Illegal as in "against the law").
So as this is NOT a case for making America, Hitler's Germany (and I am surprised you wanted to go there) I think this premise MUST be a joke. So, Rapist, why are you throwing out such idiotic premises? Should back your positions. Perhaps actually finding a premise that actually backs your claims of me being a bigot? Suggestion of course.
-
Funny how you seem to think that opposing bigotry in whatever form it comes equals "emotional reasoning". Me, I happen to think that banning a group of people from entering the US for no reason at all other than a confused millionaire's vote fishing is upsetting, just as I think blaming Mexicans and suggesting a wall between the US and Mexico for those same reasons is upsetting.
It's not what we were told America stands for. It's not compatible with the ideals they helped originate and then signed with a whole bunch of other countries after WW2, the idea being to learn from recent history and make sure it doesn't repeat itself.
This, of course, is where you inject your BS about the rights of countries to stop anyone they want at their borders, an utterly irrelevant deflection to avoid having to defend the obvious bigotry in the proposal, and actually quite sad. I really did think you were smarter than that, a few months ago. Obviously you aren't.
If it's emotional reasoning to join the choir in pointing out the eerie similarities between Hitler in the early 30s and Trump today, then I'm fine with it.
I do not think
:2thumbsup:
-
Funny how you seem to think that opposing bigotry in whatever form it comes equals "emotional reasoning". Me, I happen to think that banning a group of people from entering the US for no reason at all other than a confused millionaire's vote fishing is upsetting, just as I think blaming Mexicans and suggesting a wall between the US and Mexico for those same reasons is upsetting.
It's not what we were told America stands for. It's not compatible with the ideals they helped originate and then signed with a whole bunch of other countries after WW2, the idea being to learn from recent history and make sure it doesn't repeat itself.
This, of course, is where you inject your BS about the rights of countries to stop anyone they want at their borders, an utterly irrelevant deflection to avoid having to defend the obvious bigotry in the proposal, and actually quite sad. I really did think you were smarter than that, a few months ago. Obviously you aren't.
If it's emotional reasoning to join the choir in pointing out the eerie similarities between Hitler in the early 30s and Trump today, then I'm fine with it.
I do not think
:2thumbsup:
Very clever Butterflies. By clever, I mean stupid and by stupid I mean without any merit. So well done I guess.
-
Funny how you seem to think that opposing bigotry in whatever form it comes equals "emotional reasoning". Me, I happen to think that banning a group of people from entering the US for no reason at all other than a confused millionaire's vote fishing is upsetting, just as I think blaming Mexicans and suggesting a wall between the US and Mexico for those same reasons is upsetting.
It's not what we were told America stands for. It's not compatible with the ideals they helped originate and then signed with a whole bunch of other countries after WW2, the idea being to learn from recent history and make sure it doesn't repeat itself.
This, of course, is where you inject your BS about the rights of countries to stop anyone they want at their borders, an utterly irrelevant deflection to avoid having to defend the obvious bigotry in the proposal, and actually quite sad. I really did think you were smarter than that, a few months ago. Obviously you aren't.
If it's emotional reasoning to join the choir in pointing out the eerie similarities between Hitler in the early 30s and Trump today, then I'm fine with it.
I do not think
:2thumbsup:
It kind of shows. :laugh:
-
Funny how you seem to think that opposing bigotry in whatever form it comes equals "emotional reasoning". Me, I happen to think that banning a group of people from entering the US for no reason at all other than a confused millionaire's vote fishing is upsetting, just as I think blaming Mexicans and suggesting a wall between the US and Mexico for those same reasons is upsetting.
It's not what we were told America stands for. It's not compatible with the ideals they helped originate and then signed with a whole bunch of other countries after WW2, the idea being to learn from recent history and make sure it doesn't repeat itself.
This, of course, is where you inject your BS about the rights of countries to stop anyone they want at their borders, an utterly irrelevant deflection to avoid having to defend the obvious bigotry in the proposal, and actually quite sad. I really did think you were smarter than that, a few months ago. Obviously you aren't.
If it's emotional reasoning to join the choir in pointing out the eerie similarities between Hitler in the early 30s and Trump today, then I'm fine with it.
I do not think
:2thumbsup:
It kind of shows. :laugh:
You are not a good judge of such things, Rapist. You have not even come up with who and how I am a bigot. It is precisely because YOU do not think. You are too emotional with your reasoning.
-
I am a bigot.
Fixed.
-
What media outlet are 'liberal'?
The vast majority are here.
In what way?
By reporting news stories which support left-wing politics, and/or promoting a left-wing opinionated slant to reporting of events. While there are a couple of mainstream news outlets in the US which are considered to have a conservative bias, and all news outlets probably display some degree of centrism, US news generally has a liberal political tone.
'Liberal' you mean? They are liberal in the slightest. Call it 'left wing' if you want. They are just all corporate/globalist media.
Liberal and conservative political viewpoints are synonymous with left and right wing in the US.
Apparently so.
What does it mean where you are?
The same pretty much, but it doesn't really mean anything neither here or there. The 'Liberal Democrats' formed a coalition with the Conservative party and were both in favor of secret courts, and gay marriage. The Labour party hates the working class and one of the Green party's main goals was to build more houses....
-
Because of their cheerleading to pour millions of Arab and African Muslims into Europe?
Because it is the humane thing to do. In case you didn't know, there is a war going on and people are fleeing for their lives.
No it is not, it's the most idiotic thing to do. The most humane thing to do is not destroy countries so that people have a reason to leave, and then encourage them to do so by making it well known that they will now be picked up a few miles of the coast of Libya if they try to get to Europe by boat. They ought to told that they have no place in Europe and they will be taken straight back to their set sail from. Or better still, stop the boats leaving shore.
It would be far better if the war could be stopped. The vast majority of these people didn't (and don't) want to leave--they, like most of us, have built up their lives in their home countries, and having to leave everything behind is not what any one of us wants.
There is room in Europe, plenty of room, and the people are going to board those boats--any boats--regardless. The logical thing for us to do would be to make it safer for them. I'd suggest providing transport. It would probably save both money and lives.
Not "stopped", just never started. Obama knew he was funding Al Qaeda and still went ahead with it. Of course, but we must get to the route causes and put an end to it all.
No there isn't, Europeans do not want a million people from a different culture pouring into their country, that is clear. They don't need to skip neighbors like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Dubai Plenty of room there and they are very rich countries.
-
I am a bigot.
I am a rapist
Fixed
-
Mass shooting can't happen in France either. :tard:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-shots/gunman-kills-at-least-four-people-in-french-christmas-market-idUSKBN1OA2A8?il=0
-
:facepalm2:
-
No reply to the facepalm, just negging my karma?
Two can play that game, and I can play it a lot better than you. :-*
-
No reply to the facepalm, just negging my karma?
Two can play that game, and I can play it a lot better than you. :-*
There was nothing to reply to.
You're the one who started the karma negging you mendacious little fucking scumbag!! :finger:
Hide behind the admin panel because that's the kind of passive agressive coward you are. :M
-
Mass shootings can happen anywhere that people have access to guns. Duh. Mass stabbings can happen when people have access to knives and motor vehicles can be used to run people over where people have access to motor vehicles.
Has anyone actually claimed that mass shootings cannot happen in France or Germany? Or is this another bad strawman argument?
Some countries have tried, with significant success, sensible restrictions on who can own guns, what type of guns people can own, where guns can be carried and how they can be used. The claim is not that all gun violence can be eliminated this way. Just as requiring people to obtain drivers' licenses and putting a speed limit on a fucking road is not the same thing as making the claim that speed limits and drivers' licences mean that there will be no road deaths ever.
-
Mass shootings can happen anywhere that people have access to guns. Duh.
Which is literally everywhere on planet earth. Duh.
Even a clever prisoner, given an empty shell casing, can reload it and construct a zip gun to fire it.
-
No reply to the facepalm, just negging my karma?
Two can play that game, and I can play it a lot better than you. :-*
There was nothing to reply to.
You're the one who started the karma negging you mendacious little fucking scumbag!! :finger:
Hide behind the admin panel because that's the kind of passive agressive coward you are. :M
Oh, fuck off, Scrap. You started this one and you know it.
You've been doing the passive-aggressive thing for years now and you know it. Little things like that 'odeot' moniker. Don't try to hide by claiming it's all me using the admin panel. You're not some choir boy - they'd never admit you.
-
Has anyone actually claimed that mass shootings cannot happen in France or Germany? Or is this another bad strawman argument?
Scarp is what Scrap does.
-
No reply to the facepalm, just negging my karma?
Two can play that game, and I can play it a lot better than you. :-*
There was nothing to reply to.
You're the one who started the karma negging you mendacious little fucking scumbag!! :finger:
Hide behind the admin panel because that's the kind of passive agressive coward you are. :M
Oh, fuck off, Scrap. You started this one and you know it.
You've been doing the passive-aggressive thing for years now and you know it. Little things like that 'odeot' moniker. Don't try to hide by claiming it's all me using the admin panel. You're not some choir boy - they'd never admit you.
You started it months ago you hypocritical scumbag. In fact I saw you admitting to it in the comment on his karma negging you fucking idiot. You do this because as Admin you can exert more power and influence, on your aged person's retirement home of a forum, by ignoring the member restrictions of time limits of members and neg karma Scrap excessively by abusing your Admin panel. It is you being you and starting shit as a member and retaliating to the pushback as an Admin. You are weak and slimy. Not an adult and not a man. Worm.
-
Little things like that 'odeot' moniker. Don't try to hide by claiming it's all me using the admin panel.
Oh noes! A micro-aggression.
One that anyone could do to anyone else.
Using the admin panel to react to this shit is like a cop giving a ticket to someone who called them a pig.
-
No reply to the facepalm, just negging my karma?
Two can play that game, and I can play it a lot better than you. :-*
There was nothing to reply to.
You're the one who started the karma negging you mendacious little fucking scumbag!! :finger:
Hide behind the admin panel because that's the kind of passive agressive coward you are. :M
Oh, fuck off, Scrap. You started this one and you know it.
You've been doing the passive-aggressive thing for years now and you know it. Little things like that 'odeot' moniker. Don't try to hide by claiming it's all me using the admin panel. You're not some choir boy - they'd never admit you.
You started it months ago you hypocritical scumbag. In fact I saw you admitting to it in the comment on his karma negging you fucking idiot. You do this because as Admin you can exert more power and influence, on your aged person's retirement home of a forum, by ignoring the member restrictions of time limits of members and neg karma Scrap excessively by abusing your Admin panel. It is you being you and starting shit as a member and retaliating to the pushback as an Admin. You are weak and slimy. Not an adult and not a man. Worm.
You really need to start controlling your butthurt, Al. You know this can't end well. It never does. Your head will hurt and there will be a dozen illegible tirades here, and you'll need to buy more brandy, and... Think about your heart. You need to take care of it. Lots of people care for you and they're worried about you. Well, I'm not one of them, of course, and I can't think of anyone else, but I'm sure there will be someone, somewhere. Maybe.
-
Little things like that 'odeot' moniker. Don't try to hide by claiming it's all me using the admin panel.
Oh noes! A micro-aggression.
One that anyone could do to anyone else.
Using the admin panel to react to this shit is like a cop giving a ticket to someone who called them a pig.
Is that why you did it when you were an admin?
-
Little things like that 'odeot' moniker. Don't try to hide by claiming it's all me using the admin panel.
Oh noes! A micro-aggression.
One that anyone could do to anyone else.
Using the admin panel to react to this shit is like a cop giving a ticket to someone who called them a pig.
Is that why you did it when you were an admin?
No, he was a great Admin. It was open slather at Cal's.
-
No reply to the facepalm, just negging my karma?
Two can play that game, and I can play it a lot better than you. :-*
There was nothing to reply to.
You're the one who started the karma negging you mendacious little fucking scumbag!! :finger:
Hide behind the admin panel because that's the kind of passive agressive coward you are. :M
Oh, fuck off, Scrap. You started this one and you know it.
You've been doing the passive-aggressive thing for years now and you know it. Little things like that 'odeot' moniker. Don't try to hide by claiming it's all me using the admin panel. You're not some choir boy - they'd never admit you.
You started it months ago you hypocritical scumbag. In fact I saw you admitting to it in the comment on his karma negging you fucking idiot. You do this because as Admin you can exert more power and influence, on your aged person's retirement home of a forum, by ignoring the member restrictions of time limits of members and neg karma Scrap excessively by abusing your Admin panel. It is you being you and starting shit as a member and retaliating to the pushback as an Admin. You are weak and slimy. Not an adult and not a man. Worm.
You really need to start controlling your butthurt, Al. You know this can't end well. It never does. Your head will hurt and there will be a dozen illegible tirades here, and you'll need to buy more brandy, and... Think about your heart. You need to take care of it. Lots of people care for you and they're worried about you. Well, I'm not one of them, of course, and I can't think of anyone else, but I'm sure there will be someone, somewhere. Maybe.
The worm roars and descends into inconsequentials.
The truth is that YOU are butthurt and it is not even up for question. Your actions dictate you the degree of butthurt.
You argue as a member and when you get butthurt you threaten or take action as an Administrator. We have all seen it.We know these are actions of butthurt.
I KNOW you project all your pettiness and cowardly traits away from you and onto others, but that is because you are a slimy worm.
You KNOW how terrible person you really are and you simply do not want to own it. You are weak and weaselly, Odeon.
-
Poor, Al, that's just gotta hurt. All that bitterness and butthurt. You should try one of those mindfulness exercises. They're supposedly easy to follow.