America First!

[Hayabusa Rider]

Probably for the self same reason you "bit" on his response. I mean, I could ask you the same, but for me there'd be no point.

Each thread contains a series of meandering dialogues, clustered around the general topic of the OP. When another poster says something outrageous or ignorant or really, really stupid, other posters respond in order to highlight that ignorance or stupidity . . . or to simply gainsay another's opinion.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

If there is one thing this recent election should have taught me, it's that it can be considered a mistake to assume that just because you see the outrageous ignorance of another's opinion, that "all good men" also see it.

"If you see something, say something."

Otherwise the terrorists will win . . . and by terrorists, Winston, I mean our homegrown asshole regressives. I know ahm skeered & alarmed by all the unfolding ramifications of this Trump presidency.

I think you should be, too. Are you?

And why is this an old white guy who loves Trump? There is a psychology behind trolling and part of the "thrill" is manipulation. John Wayne? The odds are that as much as people would like to view this troll as the "old white guy" it's someone who has a deep seated problem unrelated to politics. Trolls may very well go to a Rep leaning site and do the same thing and of course he would be a socialist terrorist leftist and he "wins".

You heard the words and you automatically relate it to Trump when you have no basis other than an over the top persona. Whoever this is wants to get your goat. You gave him the herd. Don't do that and be an easy target of manipulation.

 

[realibrad]

I disagree. Stupid, crazy, and irrational people need to be shamed and forced back into their hole until they can properly function in society. The stupid, crazy, and irrational people have mobilized and normalized and they need to be stopped. Trump is the direct result of their growth.
Debate only works when people can agree on what the facts are, otherwise you are just arguing with a crazy person (if that's your thing then knock yourself out).

Free speech, btw, doesn't mean free from criticism and humiliation, which is what you are complaining about.

That way of thinking is the exact same that Trump has FYI. You both believe you are right and that you need to shut people up because they will never accept reality. You want to exclude them from society until they agree with you. That only works in the short run if you start on the right side.

The flaw in your plan is that you have no feedback on if your views are still correct. The reason you MUST debate is to ensure that your views still hold up. The reason why there has been growth is not because your side did not shame enough people. Its growing because debate is seen as unneeded by both sides.

If you want change, debate is the only option... well unless you want to murder everyone. It is sad/ironic that people cannot see that.

 

[ivwshane]

That way of thinking is the exact same that Trump has FYI. You both believe you are right and that you need to shut people up because they will never accept reality. You want to exclude them from society until they agree with you. That only works in the short run if you start on the right side.

The flaw in your plan is that you have no feedback on if your views are still correct. The reason you MUST debate is to ensure that your views still hold up. The reason why there has been growth is not because your side did not shame enough people. Its growing because debate is seen as unneeded by both sides.

If you want change, debate is the only option... well unless you want to murder everyone. It is sad/ironic that people cannot see that.

You are projecting. I don't believe I'm right when the facts say otherwise, so that there is a big difference between trump and me. I also don't dismiss anything that runs counter to what I feel. I fact check and adjust my thinking/views accordingly.

However, when someone says that Obama banned refugees in Iraq and I fact check it and provide them with such facts and they continue to make the same claims, there is no debate to be had. Just like when a president claims they had the largest crowd ever and the facts don't agree, there is no debate that can be had.

 

[realibrad]

You are projecting. I don't believe I'm right when the facts say otherwise, so that there is a big difference between trump and me. I also don't dismiss anything that runs counter to what I feel. I fact check and adjust my thinking/views accordingly.

However, when someone says that Obama banned refugees in Iraq and I fact check it and provide them with such facts and they continue to make the same claims, there is no debate to be had. Just like when a president claims they had the largest crowd ever and the facts don't agree, there is no debate that can be had.

Oh my mistake. You better shame more people then. God knows that Hillary only lost to Trump because enough people were not shammed. Your alternative facts are above reproach and are iron clad. So when the Obama stopped new visas while they reviewed their policy, that is exactly opposite. Because if they are slightly different, they must be completely different.

I will get out and shame as many people as I can so the wrong people don't spread fake information!

 

[realibrad]

I would think a rational citizen would be more afraid of real terrorists. The Islamic kind that come to America to wage Jihad. That's a real and imminent threat. Heaven forbid the president of the US tries to put a stop to it and keep citizens safe. It's the rational thing to do, but some won't like it because: "It's Drumpf, he's a xenophobic, racist,sexist, islamaphobe, homophobe misogynist!" Oh, and he is against Communists (aka "Progressives") and Global power structure.

Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all halted Islamic immigration in one form or another.

Nobody ever lost their mud over that.

To be fair though, Islamic Terrorism in the grand scheme is such a small worry. I will grant you that Islamic Terrorism is larger than the Left would like to believe, but vastly smaller than what the Right wants to believe. Post 9/11 hundreds have died. In that same time, how many have died from drug overdose? It would be far more rational to find a solution to drugs than Islamic Terrorism right now would it not?

Holy shit, did you see that? I disagreed with you but I did not have to shame you. What has the world come to?!?!?!

 

[ivwshane]

Oh my mistake. You better shame more people then. God knows that Hillary only lost to Trump because enough people were not shammed. Your alternative facts are above reproach and are iron clad. So when the Obama stopped new visas while they reviewed their policy, that is exactly opposite. Because if they are slightly different, they must be completely different.

I will get out and shame as many people as I can so the wrong people don't spread fake information!

Lol, yes, Hillary lost because she and her supporters weren't nice enough.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

 

[MongGrel]

I have to agree there and I'm sure statistics would support that.


Now to be off on my own tangent: Importing people that wish to do US citizens harm and never want to assimilate into our society is a very bad idea that can only end up with them or us killed.

Or them jailed or executed for whatever crimes they commit after the fact. Either way it's closing the gate after the horse has left the barn.

You're still on level one of being shallow, more like sub level. No one has ever been importing individuals without screening.

A lot of people have actually been deported in the last 8 years.

No I am not going to go look that up for you.

If you're going to hang out in P&N, you should come in with at least a slight amount of knowledge of world affairs to begin with.

 

[realibrad]

I have to agree there and I'm sure statistics would support that.


Now to be off on my own tangent: Importing people that wish to do US citizens harm and never want to assimilate into our society is a very bad idea that can only end up with them or us killed.

Or them jailed or executed for whatever crimes they commit after the fact. Either way it's closing the gate after the horse has left the barn.

Assuming that to be true, it would still be less efficient to throw so many resources at bans than it is to work on other issues. Even if you want to solve that direct problem, it would be more efficient to set up a process that assimilates people into American Culture vs excluding them. We have split ourselves so much, that to borrow a phrase, you are closing the gate after the horse has left the barn by trying to exclude people.

I do agree that society should be more focused on pushing for western ideals, but currently there cannot be debate on culture so we are stuck.

 

[realibrad]

You're still on level one of being shallow, more like sub level. No one has ever been importing individuals without screening.

A lot of people have actually been deported in the last 8 years.

No I am not going to go look that up for you.

If you're going to hang out in P&N, you should come in with at least a slight amount of knowledge of world affairs to begin with.

Screening has not been great either. The reason Obama put a pause on Iraq was because we let in people we really should not have. The Bowling Green incident ironically shows this. We let in people that actually carried out attacks on US service men and were trying to funnel money to ISIS while in the US. That mistake made Obama and his admin stop new visas until we could go over who we let in and our process of letting people in.

That said, my original argument still applies here, and Islamic Terrorism is not our biggest problem and is far over valued.

 

[MongGrel]

Oh so you're going to make the claim, yet not provide any stats for it. Beautiful.

Why should anyone take you seriously if that is the case?

It would lend much more credibility to your argument to provide facts supporting it.

You're like an old badly scratched record at this point.

 

[MongGrel]

Screening has not been great either. The reason Obama put a pause on Iraq was because we let in people we really should not have. The Bowling Green incident ironically shows this. We let in people that actually carried out attacks on US service men and were trying to funnel money to ISIS while in the US. That mistake made Obama and his admin stop new visas until we could go over who we let in and our process of letting people in.

That said, my original argument still applies here, and Islamic Terrorism is not our biggest problem and is far over valued.

Bowling Green

Trump is a larger problem than terrorists atm.

 

[MongGrel]

And your claim is still wholly unsupported and dubious.

I rarely ignore people, but you just went on the short list.

Not even gonna bother with a gopher.

 

[realibrad]

It would be advantageous to refuse bringing people in that can clearly be assessed as not wanting to assimilate and become Americans.

Opportunity cost my friend. The amount of time and energy try to go the extra mile could be better spent on assimilation. I promise that the money spent on this whole thing is going to be very expensive. We have a hard enough time trying to figure out who is a bad guy here, doing that over there is even harder.

 

[realibrad]

Bowling Green

Trump is a larger problem than terrorists atm.

You do know the actual story of Bowling Green right? No the Conway story, but the real story.

 

[bshole]

I'll put it to you like this:Americans don't care what anybody else thinks and we are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves.

I could never shop at a grocery store again and still live a long, productive life. Could you?

Yes I'd be eating fish and gator tail and squirrel and rabbit. I can do that. I don't think you have the balls to.

Now what would happen to the gators, squirrels and rabbit if 300 million Americans tried to survive on them? Extinction in 1 month? 2?

In any event, why do you think educated professionals would be impressed by somebody who says they can live like a Neanderthal? Even that is a lie. Humans are social creatures. Their survival is down to the ability to work within a cooperative group of other humans. Anti-social loners such as you portray yourself were mostly weeded out by evolutionary forces, simply put, they could not survive as well the humans that were happy to work within the context of a group/society. That explains why people with your mindset are a tiny minority.

I repeat the question, why would you think any modern social human would be impressed by your boasts of anti-social tendencies? Why would you think we would want to live the life of a disaffected loner? Many of us get the most joy and meaning in our lives from other people. Not sure why this isn't the case for you.

 

[MongGrel]

You do know the actual story of Bowling Green right? No the Conway story, but the real story.

Yes I do.

We do not need to get in a discussion about it.

Apparently the guys running the show do not have much knowledge of it, which is worse.

 

[bshole]

Careful, your Freudian slip is showing. I failed to mention the beef and chicken aspect as well. Rabbits and squirrels and fish can be farmed, too.

Yes I am anti-socialist to a degree. While I recognize there is a need for safety nets, the government does not need to be involved in everything.

Not my point.

Why would you think we would be impressed with your obvious pride in your ability to live the life of a disaffected loner?

I am genuinely curious. It makes no sense to me why you would think modern civilized people would be impressed with that.

 

[realibrad]

No amount of mollycoddling is going to get a Jihadist to assimilate.

Agreed. Religious people do not change their minds when they are at the extremes, or at least only in trivial amounts. That said, its going to happen so long as we allow any amount of immigration. The goal is to be reasonable, not 100% safe.

People will still die a lot from guns, should we also ban guns because they are dangerous?

 

[realibrad]

Yes I do.

We do not need to get in a discussion about it.

Apparently the guys running the show do not have much knowledge of it, which is worse.

Just wanted to make sure. I did not go into it deeply as it would distract. But it does go to my point that things are never perfect and in fact have some pretty big flaws sometimes.

 

[MongGrel]

Agreed. Religious people do not change their minds when they are at the extremes, or at least only in trivial amounts. That said, its going to happen so long as we allow any amount of immigration. The goal is to be reasonable, not 100% safe.

People will still die a lot from guns, should we also ban guns because they are dangerous?

Did you revert to n00b mode ?

 

[realibrad]

Did you revert to n00b mode ?

No, I am showing the flaw in thinking we need to ban huge parts of the world for a threat that is not huge. Typically, that argument is made from someone on the Right who argues we should not regulate guns which represent a far greater danger. It would thus be logically inconsistent.

 

[realibrad]

More people die from auto accidents than guns every year, should we ban cars?

Nope, which is why its logically inconsistent to say we need to worry about Islamic terrorism on the scale we do. Your fear of a few getting in seems to imply that we need to be safer than we are now. The reality is that the countries banned have not had anyone do acts of terrorism in the US. Are you saying it makes sense to increase our security in that regard beyond what we have now?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

No amount of mollycoddling is going to get a Jihadist to assimilate.

awww that's so cute. this has to be bucky, right?

 

[1sikbITCH]

Way to speak like a globalist lemming. The country is currently self-sustaining, one instance where you have it wrong. Furthermore it should be always. I'd suggest you stick your Communism right up your colon.

Thanks Obama!

 

[realibrad]

I'm all for cutting off allowing any would-be Jihadists into the US. Are you for allowing them to come here?

No, but the issue is not analog. I am also not for murders by guns, but I also respect the fact that its too is not an analog situation. Trying to prevent terrorism from countries that have not yet had someone commit terrorism in the US seems to be a waste of resources. I value American safety quite a bit. I also value freedom and American ideals.