Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

"It's not a Muslim ban! It's working out very nicely!"

Page 12 of 21 [ 325 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 21  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Feb 2017, 1:18 am

jrjones9933 wrote:
Edit: On the Australia deal, Trump gets to choose the refugees we take. He gets to vet them however he likes and there are plenty to choose from. The fact that he doesn't find that sufficient just shows where his heart is on this.


I think he's currently seeking legal advice on how to get around the Obama deal struck prior to the ascension of his orange highness.

One possible loophole is that the previous deal will be invalid based on Trump's current ban on the 7 designated terrorist hotpsots, but more than half of the refugees are from other places such as Burma and Sri Lanka so don't really qualify as potential Boston bombers (as Trump so ignorantly declared)



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

03 Feb 2017, 2:35 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
If they're looking for a blond, blue eyed Jesus, they're going to be disappointed.


Not necessarily. In doing some piecemeal research I found that blond blue eyed Palestinians do seem to exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=blonde+ ... sQ_AUIBigB



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,734
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Feb 2017, 2:46 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If they're looking for a blond, blue eyed Jesus, they're going to be disappointed.


Not necessarily. In doing some piecemeal research I found that blond blue eyed Palestinians do seem to exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=blonde+ ... sQ_AUIBigB


Very likely, they were descendants of European Crusaders, or perhaps they're gene pool dates back even farther, to the Sea People/Philistines of the late Bronze Age, early Iron Age, who had originated in the Aegean, and who had been described as blond and blue eyed.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Feb 2017, 3:19 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If they're looking for a blond, blue eyed Jesus, they're going to be disappointed.


Not necessarily. In doing some piecemeal research I found that blond blue eyed Palestinians do seem to exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=blonde+ ... sQ_AUIBigB


Which proves that Jesus was blonde haired blue eyes! amen!



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

03 Feb 2017, 5:17 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If they're looking for a blond, blue eyed Jesus, they're going to be disappointed.


Not necessarily. In doing some piecemeal research I found that blond blue eyed Palestinians do seem to exist.


https://www.google.com/search?q=blonde+ ... sQ_AUIBigB


Very likely, they were descendants of European Crusaders, or perhaps they're gene pool dates back even farther, to the Sea People/Philistines of the late Bronze Age, early Iron Age, who had originated in the Aegean, and who had been described as blond and blue eyed.


I guess there's no need for me to do further research then.

cyberdad wrote:
Which proves that Jesus was blonde haired blue eyes! amen!


Not necessarily. But I know for a fact that the devil has blue eyes and blue jeans.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

03 Feb 2017, 5:28 am

Darmok wrote:
More fake news and lies:

Oh, Okay: Man Who Claimed Mother Died In Iraq Due To Travel Ban Lied

They say that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has the chance to put its shoes on. In this case, a lie went viral, was one of the top stories on Reddit, and was used to slander a president before the truth came out.

The backstory: Mike Hager, a U.S. citizen, said that his mother was stuck in Iraq due to President Trump's executive order restricting immigration and visa holders from certain countries. Hager claimed his mother, Naimma, who was very sick, was not allowed to travel to the U.S. on Friday despite having a green card. She then passed away in Iraq the next day....

As it turns out, the real reason why Hager's mother wasn't permitted to fly to the United States on Friday was because she had been dead for five days.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christiner ... d-n2279962

So one story was made up. This doesn't change the fact that it very well could have happened. People of other people are having their lives f****d up by this policy of denying entry to LEGAL permanent residents. It makes absolutely no sense. I already know you don't give a f**k though, because you're not affected, only "dirty foreigners".



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

03 Feb 2017, 5:39 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
So those bigots who complain about immigration can go pound salt.

or vote for Trump ...


So, we're agreed bigots voted for Trump?


Isn't stereotyping Trump voters as bigots, displaying bigotry? Is not using terms like "Trumpanzees" and all the other pejoratives I keep seeing a display of bigotry?

It's a false equivalence though. Being a bigot is a choice. Being born into a certain culture/nationality or having a certain skin color isn't a choice. Being born into a Muslim society isn't a choice. I think the word you're looking for is prejudice.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

03 Feb 2017, 5:57 am

Let's try to keep at least one Trump thread on track at all times, people.

I have a theory about how this will go. Ask the people who like the ban how much risk they are willing to accept from refugees. Can we agree that the answer will be very small? Epsilon? The acceptable level of risk equals x as x approaches zero? Zero?

Ultimately, the answer will always be less is better, and that essentially gets us to zero. So, for all intents and purposes, zero. No system gets you to zero risk.

The ban will not be reduced, but expanded. Only that will satisfy a majority of Americans. The majority of that majority has not thought it through to the only logical conclusion, and will avoid doing so if at all possible.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

03 Feb 2017, 6:08 am

marshall wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
So those bigots who complain about immigration can go pound salt.

or vote for Trump ...


So, we're agreed bigots voted for Trump?


Isn't stereotyping Trump voters as bigots, displaying bigotry? Is not using terms like "Trumpanzees" and all the other pejoratives I keep seeing a display of bigotry?

It's a false equivalence though. Being a bigot is a choice. Being born into a certain culture/nationality or having a certain skin color isn't a choice. Being born into a Muslim society isn't a choice. I think the word you're looking for is prejudice.


The words are synonymous. In this case the bigotry I referred to is often racially slanted stereotyping Trump supporters as ignorant white trash white supremacists and the like. When I pointed this out in another thread, the response was, "if the shoe fits".



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

03 Feb 2017, 6:15 am

jrjones9933 wrote:
Let's try to keep at least one Trump thread on track at all times, people.

I have a theory about how this will go. Ask the people who like the ban how much risk they are willing to accept from refugees. Can we agree that the answer will be very small? Epsilon? The acceptable level of risk equals x as x approaches zero? Zero?

Ultimately, the answer will always be less is better, and that essentially gets us to zero. So, for all intents and purposes, zero. No system gets you to zero risk.

The ban will not be reduced, but expanded. Only that will satisfy a majority of Americans. The majority of that majority has not thought it through to the only logical conclusion, and will avoid doing so if at all possible.


Have you ever considered writing in unembellished English?



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

03 Feb 2017, 6:22 am

EzraS wrote:
In this case the bigotry I referred to is often racially slanted stereotyping Trump supporters as ignorant white trash white supremacists and the like. When I pointed this out in another thread, the response was, "if the shoe fits".

No one on the left has used the term white trash for decades.

What could someone gain by constantly making assertions without knowledge of the subject, or doing any research? Well, a large volume of meaningless posts does lower the overall quality of the thread, and by extension the board. It also makes it less likely that lurkers will bother to read through and notice the actual discussion trying to take place around the noise.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

03 Feb 2017, 6:37 am

jrjones9933 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
In this case the bigotry I referred to is often racially slanted stereotyping Trump supporters as ignorant white trash white supremacists and the like. When I pointed this out in another thread, the response was, "if the shoe fits".

No one on the left has used the term white trash for decades.


Are you sure about that? https://www.google.com/#q=Trump+support ... hite+trash

jrjones9933 wrote:
What could someone gain by constantly making assertions without knowledge of the subject, or doing any research?


You mean like you just did?

jrjones9933 wrote:
Well, a large volume of meaningless posts does lower the overall quality of the thread, and by extension the board. It also makes it less likely that lurkers will bother to read through and notice the actual discussion trying to take place around the noise.


It looks like you're projecting again.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

03 Feb 2017, 6:52 am

It helps if after you put the search terms into Google, you read some of the results. However, a small number of people in the Democratic party do use that offensive term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash

So as not to get into a No True Scotsman argument, whatever. By some definition of the left, some on the left do still use that term, in the face of loud opposition from most of the left. Not just saying: Don't be a bigot (in public), but actually breaking down the meaning of the term in detail and putting together coherent arguments against using it. You can find all of those arguments in the articles that resulted from searching "Trump supporters are [the wt word]."

Point conceded, in part, but it still provides more support for my theory about this apparently coordinated effort to derail threads by just saying stuff, any stuff that might get a response which takes things further off point.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

03 Feb 2017, 6:56 am

EzraS wrote:
marshall wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
So those bigots who complain about immigration can go pound salt.

or vote for Trump ...


So, we're agreed bigots voted for Trump?


Isn't stereotyping Trump voters as bigots, displaying bigotry? Is not using terms like "Trumpanzees" and all the other pejoratives I keep seeing a display of bigotry?

It's a false equivalence though. Being a bigot is a choice. Being born into a certain culture/nationality or having a certain skin color isn't a choice. Being born into a Muslim society isn't a choice. I think the word you're looking for is prejudice.


The words are synonymous. In this case the bigotry I referred to is often racially slanted stereotyping Trump supporters as ignorant white trash white supremacists and the like. When I pointed this out in another thread, the response was, "if the shoe fits".

Your own words were "Isn't stereotyping Trump voters as bigots displaying bigotry". We were not talking about "white trash" or other racial/cultural stereotypes. We were merely talking about the assertion that Trumps supporters are bigots.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

03 Feb 2017, 7:04 am

jrjones9933 wrote:
It helps if after you put the search terms into Google, you read some of the results. However, a small number of people in the Democratic party do use that offensive term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash


Considering the fact that none of my teachers accept Wikipedia articles as valid citation, I don't see any reason why I should either.

jrjones9933 wrote:
So as not to get into a No True Scotsman argument, whatever. By some definition of the left, some on the left do still use that term, in the face of loud opposition from most of the left. Not just saying: Don't be a bigot (in public), but actually breaking down the meaning of the term in detail and putting together coherent arguments against using it. You can find all of those arguments in the articles that resulted from searching "Trump supporters are [the wt word]."

Point conceded, in part, but it still provides more support for my theory about this apparently coordinated effort to derail threads by just saying stuff, any stuff that might get a response which takes things further off point.


I don't know if you're striving to be eloquent or what, but you display some of the most convoluted diction I've ever come across.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

03 Feb 2017, 7:09 am

marshall wrote:
EzraS wrote:
marshall wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
So those bigots who complain about immigration can go pound salt.

or vote for Trump ...


So, we're agreed bigots voted for Trump?


Isn't stereotyping Trump voters as bigots, displaying bigotry? Is not using terms like "Trumpanzees" and all the other pejoratives I keep seeing a display of bigotry?

It's a false equivalence though. Being a bigot is a choice. Being born into a certain culture/nationality or having a certain skin color isn't a choice. Being born into a Muslim society isn't a choice. I think the word you're looking for is prejudice.


The words are synonymous. In this case the bigotry I referred to is often racially slanted stereotyping Trump supporters as ignorant white trash white supremacists and the like. When I pointed this out in another thread, the response was, "if the shoe fits".

Your own words were "Isn't stereotyping Trump voters as bigots displaying bigotry". We were not talking about "white trash" or other racial/cultural stereotypes. We were merely talking about the assertion that Trumps supporters are bigots.


That labeling, euphemistically referred to as an assertion, is made because of an intolerant view toward those who hold different opinions from yourselves, which is the definition of bigotry.