The debate "Liberals are not human" was started by
January 18, 2017, 1:26 pm.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 37 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thereal posted 1 argument, RogueAmerican posted 114 arguments, ProfessorX posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 78 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 12 arguments, Blue_ray posted 4 arguments, neveralone posted 9 arguments, historybuff posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
RogueAmerican, LeftoverEye70, thereal, ProfessorX and 13 visitors agree.
neveralone, juniorsnow14, PsychDave, Brayden24, ZACwuzhier, Blue_ray, dj41523, historybuff, PoliticsAsUsual, MlgLeprechaun69, nellie11iah, Thepanther and 25 visitors disagree.
let's flip this.
do you feel that refusing refugees haven will make the US safer.... long term?
how will that move be viewed in the international stage?
what will the effect be on our western allies?
our western foes?
the Muslim world?
how will this move play out?
Imagine that, my responses to your comments are the same now as they were last time you made the same fundamentally flawed argument. I keep trying to prompt you to move the debate forward, you keep repeating old arguments.
I understand your in a heated debate, but could you address my point that no refugee can have a background check even from the most advanced record keeping nation, and by your criteria all refugees should be kept out. which I'm sure we can all agree is inhumane.
So are you.
Theres information. But information for an full, honest vetting is not there.
why do you keep saying we have no information in Syria? you act like Syria is some other planet. he said there were gaps, not there is absolutely no information. I'm not sure why you keep saying these things. is it your intention to be intellectually dishonest, or is it a result of you being blinded by fear and ignorance?
I am not claiming the situation in Syria is the same as Iraq. I am trusting the experts involved who agree that the screening is sufficient.
I am only condescending when I feel it is warranted. As I have been pointing out for hours, you are not debating much as regurgitating arguments made hours and days ago.
Youre disposition is entirely made of affectation and condescension. Youre entire goal is to make yourself sound smarter than everyone around you. Emotions dont lie.
Of course there have always been gaps in intelligence. You cant skirt around and claim there is a universal shortage of intelligence. This one is larger than most. Can you say that there is no discrepancy between what we know of Syria versus our capabilities in Iraq. If we're going to play the game of what was deliberate, ask yourself why would Comey stress the point that we have no information on Syrians, that our current data is crucial, and that the only way we can vet Syrians is if they have been discovered in a blatant manner? An IED maker in Syria isn't being chased by the US unless he is a known bomb maker in Iraq, or has been found to have links to other better known areas.
Comey did say that we may vet someone who has made enough noise to be found by the US. Beyond that, it is impossible.
We never know everything, so there are always gaps on intelligence. That has been covered repeatedly for hours. Please, find a new argument or at least learn from what's already been debated.
I know exactly how smart I am and while I am not brilliant I am quite intelligent. You on the other hand argue against your own position, misquote and partially quote people, and refuse to learn from arguments and are therefore repeating them. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it has never been more literally true.
You're joking. You are equating a lapse in intelligence as a challenge. That is ridiculous. Obviously its not impossible to find people. The challenge is finding people from another data source. Syria has none. Comey said Syria has none. The problem is you dont understand how vetting works. Competent vetting is not a face to face thing. Competent vetting is piling data and comparing someone to it. We cant do that. He said you may query what you know. Thats it. We know if they have made a big splash. A splash to be picked up by national intelligence or agencies in Iraq, etc. Anyone smaller is a void.
So amusing. Keep entertaining yourself with your profession of your own brilliance.
Good work. You posted a more complete quote. He chose the word challenge for a reason. It isn't impossible, it is a challenge. The extra checks make up for that, and the person you are quoting is confident in the process.
What is your response to a challenge? Do you run away, of face it?
"We have gotten much better as an intelligence community at joining our efforts and checking our databases in a way that gives us high confidence. If we have a record on somebody, it will surface. That's the good news," Comey said. "The challenge we face with Syria is that we don't have that rich set of data. So even though we've gotten better at querying what we have, we certainly will have less overall. And so as I said to a question earlier, someone only alerts as a result of our searches if we have some record on them. That's the challenge we face with Syria."
Yep. Are you able to read the rest of what he said? We've covered this as well, but at least you are caught up to 15 minutes ago.
Again, there is a difference between controlled intake of refugees and the flood of people crossing Europe. You're now recycling arguments made and refuted a bit under 3 hours ago. Again, make a new argument or I'm just going to keep giving short versions of the longer rebuttals done earlier.
?You can only query what you?ve collected, and with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country?s work there for a decade. This is a different situation,? he said.
Yep, we've covered that and the solutions that are used as well. Good job. We're now up to arguments made 1 day, 22 hours ago. Eventually maybe you will make a new argument.
While there are limits to the databases, there are also extra hurdles that Syrian refugees have to clear. Please, find a new argument.
I told you attacks are rare. Ive told you over and over and over. Why would I say that there is an abundance of attacks? It is not the position of the US to assume the risk of an attack. By any means, for any reason.
These refugees you are defending as a group, lool at Sweden. Look at Denmark. "Rape Capital" isnt something to show off about. These are the same refugees coming to the US. We cant know who is who as there is no informational institution to effectively collect data.
"The good news is we are much better doing it than eight years ago, the bad news is, there is no risk-free process."
That isnt the problem!!! The infrastructure in order to utilize better vetting is non-existent. You can test all the DNA you want but we dont have samples from Syria. That is the lapse. Our security cannot overcome total ignorance.
"He admitted that there are gaps, but that is true for any system. He is confident in the system in place but not lying about the problems"
He said there was nothing to query in Syria. That isnt your typical gap.
Please find new arguments. Recycling them is getting boring.
"The good news is we are much better doing it than eight years ago, the bad news is, there is no risk-free process."
"There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like that," he told the Senate committee. "From the intelligence community's perspective, as I said, I think we've developed an effective way to touch all of our databases and resources to figure out what we know about individuals. ? I don't think that's a cumbersome process. My concern there is that there are certain gaps."
He admitted that there are gaps, but that is true for any system. He is confident in the system in place but not lying about the problems. You arguments fall apart because you exaggerate the risk and ignore the inconvenient fact that there has not been even a single attack by refugees. You are scared, and that's fine. But I don't want people to die because people like you are cowards.
Hiding from all risk while letting people die is not the America that people have fought to create and protect. You can tell yourself that it isn't your problem, I frankly don't care.
Why was Iraq a better place? Because the US had established am intelligence community there for years. Every IED is finger printed and examined for DNA. Thats how they find those terrorists. There has never been a reason for the US to gather information im Syria.
Intentionally ignorant... You called me a liar for what I said about Comey. Comey said you cannot query what you do not know. You said that i misrepresented him because technology and the processes have changed.
"That's a great job taking a quote out if context. You are right, he said there was always a risk since if they have never made a ripple that brought them to US attention, there is nothing to check against. The problem is that he also said the system is better than it was 8 years ago "
He said that Syria is entirely different from Iraq. He said that the intelligence infrastructure of Syria is far weaker than that of Iraq. He made that blatantly clear. The purpose was to show that no matter how good you are at screening, if you dont have the infrastructure you cant do it.
Theres a biological screening, a terrorist screening, a criminal screening, and in person screenings. The first three cant be done.
This has all been covered. Just reread the responses from earlier (or more likely just read them for the first time).
Do you honestly think that is the extent of the screening? They spend a year or more and that's all they do in that time?
Debating with the intentionally ignorant accomplishes nothing, and you have demonstrated that when faced with fact, you ignore it, so why should I indulge you? Look into the process yourself. We have tried to explain some of its rigors here, but you obviously either don't understand or don't want to, so look into it yourself.
So no polygraph test, just taking a guys word for it? That is our screening. And facebook in serious instances.
So no, you have nothing to add. Got it.
So you ask Johnny if he's a bad guy, he answers yes, and he is through?
It wasn't necessarily settled, but I don't really feel like going through the same arguments all over again. Do you have anything new to add, or are you planning on going over all of those arguments again?
So you ask Johnny if he's a bad guy, and hes through?
Or extensive examination of the person in the present. Which is what they do.
Screening requires a backdrop of information. THAT IS WHAT SCREENING IS.
You digressed, like the good Pavlovian little liberal you are, to calling me a racist, hypocrite, you heavily implied I was misanthropic, etc. Nothing was ever settled.
You dont understand screening...
Well, since you are circling back through old arguments again, I'm just going to point out that we've already discussed this and let you go back and read how it went last time.
I'll respond in full arguments when you make a new argument.
Yes it is. I dont have to have biological tests taken. My biologic tests would have no conclusion; however, since the US retains this information and there is a strong frame in place, there is added security im not dangerous.
The problem is that if I cite comey who explicitly said Syria is not the same as Iraq, you call me a liar who misconstrued evidence. You then proceed to tell me that processing has progressed even though Comey said you may only query what you know. He admitted that the surveillance and intelligence of Syria was lapses. That is why there is no information. We have absolutely no information on these people. That is what vetting and screening is, you scour through all known information on someone. If there is none, there is no verificiation.
There is no information to screen for.
Wow, you are still cycling back to an argument that you've lost. They spend a year being screened. That is a more thorough process than what you go through when someone checks your ID.
Knows about them in a situation where there is no heavy surveillance. They eould have to be huge.
You know one family... Answer my question, what is the difference between a safe refugee and a dangerous one in the screening process? There is none. There are no criminal records available on them. The only way to catch a bad refugee is if they are so notorious that the US even lnows about them.
Honestly I would be fine with that. There is a family of refugees in my town and they are nice people.
Again, are you arguing that screened refugees are no different than the flood of redugee in Europe? You tried that a little while ago but avoided answering when I asked if you thought they were the same. Are you honestly claiming there is no difference, or are you just throwing out red herrings to distract from your fundamentally flawed and inhumane arguments earlier?
You're joking. The US White House had an official overview of the screening process in the 2015 year. Every screening is a cross between known biological, terrorist ties, and criminal behavior. Unfortunately for Syria, no such documentation exists to cross examine.
So the rape and crime problems in Sweden are negligible to you? The UN reported that most refugees moving into Europe were males despite the proportions being 50 50. Want to know why this happens? Well the UN wrote that there are high numbers of rapes on board vessels so now women are afraid to leave. Its a problem.
However, im sure you refugee friends will be more than enough to represent the entire population coming over.
Im saying if every refugee was going to be your neighbor, every single one, would you do it. Your house would be at the approximate center of this theoretical town.
We've covered this. Either look into it yourself or read the discussion we've already had.
They are thoroughly screened for many months or even several years. Try to keep up please. Going back over previous sections of the debate is tiresome.
So recognizing that you have no further argument there you are moving on. Ok.
Whose home is going to be used as a hub for refugees against their wishes? I would be more than willing to help refugees, and the ones I have met were nice people who were grateful to have somewhere safe to live. If you want to construct an argument, could you make it at least somewhat realistic?
How can we screen these refugees without knowing anything about them?
Lets move here. Lets say your house was to be the pivotal center of every refugee coming over. Would you be OK with your own personal slice of mini-Sweden?
Because there are routes through which refugees can flood into their nations. This leads to a lack of screening as well as a massive influx of people with no means. Can you honestly claim circumstances in the US are the same?
Condemned to death through inaction. Considering there is an active force, that is causing these deaths, that is quite the phrase. The purpose of a sovereign nation is to protect those under its sovereignty. Interfering with the Middle East does not accomplish that. Governments are not supposed to be emotional or attached; they protect their citizens. Their citizens.
Ill ask you a question. Why has the refugee crisis influenced the bleeding hearted Europeans to shift right?
And there is the fundamental difference in our outlooks. You don't care if men, women and children die, as long as you don't know them. As long as they aren't American, millions can die to avoid you having an unfounded fear of them hurting you. Feel free to hide from the scary people, but I would rather be a moral human being and help other than condemn them to death through my inaction.
At it's absolute worst, you had a 1 in 100,000 chance of being killed by a terrorist in 2011. You may feel that this risk is too high to be worth saving human lives, but I don't. The fact that the real risk is a fraction of that doesn't help your cause either.
Because, I could not reconcile that my actions led me to the death of those I swore to protect. It is not the responsibility of the US to take in refugees. If anything, it is superfluous. Now in policy matters, it doesn't help the US.
There's 300 million Americans. If terrorism were disproportionate the world would be collapsing hahahahaha
So other people's lives mean nothing to you? I'm curious how you determine that there is no reason to take it.
Largely, yes. There was one major attack. Tragic and horrifying as that is, that is like wanting to close all roads due to one terrible accident.
For some perspective on the risks of terrorism, let's use 2011 as a basis since there were just under 3000 people killed in the 9/11 attacks.
By comparison, 8583 people were murdered by firearms, 6220 of which were handguns. That means your risk of being murdered by someone with a handgun is more than double that of being killed by terrorists. That doesn't even account for accidents, just murders.
Heart disease killed 614,348. Cancer killed 591,699. Suicide took 42,773 people and diabetes 76,488.
Even in the year of the worst terrorist attack in America, you are still more than 200 times as likely to die of heart disease. I'll let you do the math on the rest, but while that attack was atrocious, you are letting that blind you to what is and is not a real danger in America.
So your moral equivalence is a risk that everyone driving prescribes to juxtaposed with a terrorist attack. Not to mention, refugees can drive too.
Of course terrorism is unlikely!!! Did the nightclub shooting not matter since odds are it wont happen to you? There are 300 million people in the US. Do we discard terrorist attacks because it only takes 1 person? Its a risk that there is no reason to take.
If you drive, the odds of you killing someone in a traffic accident far outweighs the risk of a terrorist attack. Want a fun look at the actual statistics? Here's the Washington Post.
Here's Global Research
If you need more statistics, feel free to either ask or do any basic research into likely causes of death in America. Terrorism doesn't generally make the list since the risk is so insignificant.
Yes, it is an unknown risk. Much like stepping outside the door in the morning is an unknown risk since you might get hit by a bus or gunned down in a mugging. All of life is all risk. Where you and I disagree is that you see it as too great of a risk. I see it as a minuscule potential risk against the benefit of saving human lives. You may not see value in the lives of other people, but I do, and weighed against that a infinitesimal risk of a terrorist slipping through does not sway me. They are far more likely to enter America as tourists or to already live there than to spend years trying to get in as refugees.
""Do they spend upwards of a year vetting you before giving you a gun?
No, but I do have to reconcile with a well documented history of my past. If I have every been punished for committing a felony, I cant buy a gun. Why can a refugee not do the same? Why can we not look into their past like mine?""
you don't need to be followed for a year because you have a background, they don't have a background, so they are followed for a year. I'd think 365 days of monitoring is quite a bit more intrusive, and utterly satisfactory considering the other standards.
the reason they don't have backgrounds has nothing to do with the development of their nation. even a fully modern nation with all the records in the world wouldn't make a difference because they are fleeing that government. that government doesn't give a shit about them. and there is no way in hell they would cooperate.
so your saying no to all refugees, because they are by definition, not going to have a background to check, no matter where they come from.
Was the risk of a major terrorist attack on the US negligible prior to 9/11?
Statistically America is at a greater risk because of me? Show me that one. What statistics? Come on Im sure you wouldn't throw around the word statistics unless there was something concrete about me?
The problem with refugees is there is an unknown risk. There is no possible way to know if a person has consistently been an outstanding human being. Adding a possible risk to the nation may only increase risk
You are again ignoring the fact that statistically, the rest of America is at more risk from you than them.
There is a level of risk to everything. You just seem to have no concept of what level that risk is. You equate any risk you don't like as unacceptable while ignoring any you do. There has never been an attack by refugees in America. The risk from refugees is negligible.
"It shows that there are limits to how reliable screening can be. You are concerned about refugees when you are at far more risk from your fellow Americans."
No, I dont want to stack risk upon risk.
"We cannot look into their past like yours because their country was torn apart by war. Their homes are destroyed, their possessions gone and they had to flee for their lives. If you lose your ID, you contact the government and get new ones. If they lose theirs, maybe while fleeing for their lives, they have no way to get it replaced."
Yes because my identity is well known by the government like every other citizen and documented individual. The problem is, they have no information to help us know anything. I can get my licensed replaced since they know me, but nobody knows them.
It shows that there are limits to how reliable screening can be. You are concerned about refugees when you are at far more risk from your fellow Americans.
You have to give something beyond you opinion that it's a clear and present danger. I could claim that Republicans are a clear and present danger and all need to be deported. Unless I have evidence to point to, it is rhetoric and it can safely be ignored. Likewise, unless you have something backing your belief, it can be disregarded.
We cannot look into their past like yours because their country was torn apart by war. Their homes are destroyed, their possessions gone and they had to flee for their lives. If you lose your ID, you contact the government and get new ones. If they lose theirs, maybe while fleeing for their lives, they have no way to get it replaced.
Wait wait wait slow this down.
"Also, we can point to numerous examples of improper background checks letting people get guns who then use them to hurt or kill people."
Yes. This is unsatisfactory processing. Why does that discredit the notion of needing better processing?
"You have still failed to give a single example of a refugee who carried out an attack in the US"
I dont need to. It remains a clear and present danger. The point of counter terrorism and screening is to prevent future issues. All I want is the best screening as compared to our best methods.
"Do they spend upwards of a year vetting you before giving you a gun?"
No, but I do have to reconcile with a well documented history of my past. If I have every been punished for committing a felony, I cant buy a gun. Why can a refugee not do the same? Why can we not look into their past like mine?
Also, we can point to numerous examples of improper background checks letting people get guns who then use them to hurt or kill people. You have still failed to give a single example of a refugee who carried out an attack in the US. You are applying a double standard. Do they spend upwards of a year vetting you before giving you a gun?
I get what you are saying, but the year long vetting process is sufficient. these people need a home. they are refugees. we should take at least a token number.
do you need a background check to move into a new home?
I never said arm the refugees!
Well i need the background check to get a gun from a licensed company. So obviously the past matters. It doesn't matter if im innocent, i need the requisite security check
there is a difference. your comparing the presumption of guilt, condemning millions, to someone who was tried and convicted.
If you dont take a background check, theres no difference
well gee if the guy is a convicted killer of course. shall we just judge all of these other people guilty here and now because we don't give convicted killers guns?
So his past matters?
of course not.
And a murderer?
if the felon is non violent he should be able To. he has personally done something wrong.
Why can a felon not buy a gun?
Give me a background check :)
I was talking about radicals only and you know that.
I would not support taking massive numbers though. just a token gesture gesture to what Europe is doing. maximum near, minimum risk. and monitoring. not of muslims, but just the refugees.
you have no idea anyone's past actions.
so what? you've vetted them for months. you get to hand pick the ones out of the ones who pass you want. countries are taking millions. we are taking a few thousand.
if I was in Europe I would have to worry, but it's still the best bet, even in their case. for their own security.
Yes, they consider the people who have been killing them for decades as enemies. Imagine that.
I don't call that peaceful, but the people seeking to escape that are those you are attacking and calling terrorists. By painting with such broad stroke you are again showing how little you understand the situation.
I don't know your past. Should you be kicked out? Pick a standard and apply it evenly, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
But we have no idea their past actions.
you didn't comment on my screening process suggestion? does that mean you agree?
They interpret putting Christians and Jews to the sword. They chant death to israel and America in Iran! They have vowed to annihilate all of israel. Thats peace to you?
You really only listen to yourself, don't you? You don't try to understand or learn.
They are trying to dishearten and strike fear into the west. They want to invite enough fear that we will leave them alone. There is a reason it is terrorism, not just mass murder. Their goal is to incite terror to further their ends. Much like how a nuclear bomb or two strikes sufficient fear into a nation to end a war.
Was the endgoal of Ww2 to see every japanese and german citizen dead?
So the primary purpose of a drone strike is to kill as many civilians as possible? What pleased a radical muslim beyond killing? That is their only goal.
Were the 9/11 pilots mentally sound as they morally felt an obligation to fly a plane into buildings? To kill women and men alike?
suicide bombers are not fighting just to kill people. killing people is a means to end. the exact same way America bombing civilian targets in WW2 was. or Americans bombing civilian targets in Vietnam. or Americans bombing civilian targets with drones today.
there is no difference between their struggle for what they believe in and what soldiers have done in countless other wars. dismissing them as "mentally defective" just ensures that you cannot understand them.
Why would a conservative choose Hillary over trump?
What about Jeff Sessions?
Did you support Hillary after her "F jew b" comments
He is a Republican, and therefore speaks for Republicans. I did not support him when he bragged about assaulting women. Republicans did. I did not support his racist plans for immigrants. Republicans did. While he is the president, that doesn't mean I support his ideals. Republicans have every step of the way.
Their only purpose is to kill infidels. No act has prompted them to do it. They murder women and children without discretion. Their deaths are as valuable as a mans. Their only resolution is a holocaust. Infidel dead.
Neither to radical Muslims.
Armies dont fight for the sake of killing people.
Hes your leader too
Calling for a ban on all Muslims is racist. That is your leader. You cannot distance yourself from your own leadership while sticking with the party.
Wow. You are like a damaged record. You don't learn or progress but repeat the same line over and over.
We have now circled back to you calling all soldiers mentally defective. You are calling the founding fathers who stood up to oppression and tyranny defective for violently resisting it.
If your life was threatened, or the lives of those you love were threatened, would you just put up with it? Muslims are being threatened. They are being beaten. To call them defective for responding with violence is to ignore the cause. Please stop just repeating your unfounded opinion.
yes you can. you can meet them. and then meet with them again, and again. observe their interactions with other people and interview them on their opinions of that individual.... and do that for about a year. and then take the best of them for the very limited number of slots available to come to the US.
pretty much what we are doing now.
Yes. And we dont have a database to screen these Syrian refugees with.
because basic screening to stop obvious red flags is common sense. why are you resorting to an all or nothing argument?
You said it, most dont. This notion of massive radicalization isnt true. Most people wouldnt kill. Its an individual defect.
I dont care what other people say. I am not bound by the opinions of others. The major voice from republicans is not racist unless individuals take it as that.
If that is the case, then why should we even bother to vet refugees?
Because in spite of all available evidence, you feel you are at more risk from people trying to escape a warzone than other Americans. You feel that since they come from a war torn region, we can't let them in. This is in spite of the infinitely larger number of attacks carried out by Americans. It really is infinitely more since there hasn't been a single attack on the US by a refugee.
you want to treat all of the ones outside as a threat. and although I'm sure you'll deny a personal accusation, and you may be correct, but a significant portion of your party members are currently attack, shaming, and harassing the Muslims that live here.
tell me, as an american, if you were mocked, assaulted, and harassed daily, would you lower your head and keep on keeping on, or will you fight?
oh and before you say you wouldn't kill to fight it, most dont. the number of Muslim US terrorists can be counted on 1 hand, compared to the millions you are demonizing because of that handful.
you have a choice, prove isis wrong, or prove them right. what do you choose? try to think at the long term consequences of both decisions, not just the short sighted immediate result.
Its two sects that must be reconciled.
In every sense of the word, the terrorists
Where did I say we should treat them as terrorists?
he launched it against the Catholic clergy, not the Catholic people. you are attacking the people as a whole, not just their leaders.
I would agree their leaders are evil, but their leaders aren't coming here, the people are.
Martin Luther didn't generalize all catholics into a single group. you are saying they aren't all terrorists, but we may as well treat them all like terrorists. as far as actions and consequences, the two are identical.
so your argument is that some Muslims are terrorists so we should discriminate against all Muslims. some conservatives bomb abortion clinics and are therefore terrorists. should we discriminate against them too?
But there is a true discrepency between our standard capabilities and our capabilities of vetting Syrians.
Ive never said all Muslims are terrorists!!!! Im saying there is a problem right now in Islam that needs to be sorted out! Did every catholic abuse indulgences during the reformation? They still launched a counter reformation.
your racism has nothing to do with your senseless definition of vetting. we can't even vet our own, or from Western nations sufficiently. sufficient vetting doesn't exist, so let's just ban everyone and shut our selves off from what we declare as savages. worked great for japan...
your a racist because you take a tiny minority of a certain race (religion, ethnicity, whatever) and generalize it as true to all members of a group.
you are also a hypocrit since you hold your group to a different standard and turn a blind eye to your own group's much greater predisposition to violence.
Normal people dont decide to kill for the glory lf God. Murder is wrong. Why would Muslims be inclined to be radical? There is no justification for anyone's violence.
This is laughable! I said everyone should be held to the same standards of vetting, and now I'm a racist, xenophobe!
"No but you say Muslims are going to be radicalized and slaughter people indiscriminately."
"You suggest that Islam has a propensity for violence as they will easily be driven to radicalization. Radicalization is a mental disease. People dont simply radicalize."
back to twisting words?
I never said they are predisposed to radicalization any more than you are. you "2nd ammendment people" are arming yourself to prepare for violent resistance (which entails murder) if your rights are violated. you are living in a peaceful society and already thinking of how you would kill people if you had to.
there are millions of Muslims in the US. 4 went violent. compared to the violence of radicalized right wing militants, they are insignificant. if we were to look at who is more predisposed to violence, it's people like you. and what is even more shocking is that you are so violent in a peaceful orderly nation. had you been born into an oppressive warzones, the American right seem like they would have been blood thirsty monsters.
the inquisition was carried out by more than a few Christians, but most Christians had nothing to do with it. yet you look at a few jihadies and judge all Muslims as a threat. likewise, looking at the kkk, all Christians must be predisposed to radicalization and should be deported. once again, violence in a peaceful society. violence against the defenseless with no foreign power or an oppressive government.
if you really want to look at a violent predisposition. the desire to be violent even in a peaceful land, for no reason at all. Christians are clearly the biggest threat.
I would agree with neveralone. unfortunately alot of politicians, conservatives especially, will never do that. the atmosphere of fear and hatred is politically useful for them. many people of them believe their own propaganda, as rogue American seems to.
I suggest none of these. I am Christian. I understand that others will have different religions. but not all are radical. a good screening is enough. on Muslims in America I would suggest Trump to tell them they have nothing to fear because their American. also on the crimes done to them I would demand justice.
If you want to see the kinds of things Muslims deal with every day, look at the comment section of any article on Muslims or refugees. This article breaks down how many came to America in 2016. More than 70% were women and children.
Some suggest we only admit Christian refugees. Some comments just advocate rounding up all the refugees and putting them in a boat to send back. Other suggest putting them on a boat and using them for target practice.
How many attacks in America have been carried out by refugees?
Tell me again why the vetting is insufficient.
Because they have been taught that we are the enemy.
In the middle east, many have lost loved ones to the various American invasions and wars. In the west, many face ongoing harassment, threats and violence which convinces them that the radical voices are right.
There is no way to vet Syrians in a manner equivalent to Iraq.
All vettings should be equal.
You can criticize the radicals. But generalizing it to be us vs them doesn't help anyone. You were against letting people who have spent literally years being vetted in because you couldn't know for sure that they were radical Muslims. Do you feel the same fear or radical Jews? How about radical Christians? Can you not see how this increased fear based on religion effects Muslims? Do you honestly not understand why spreading baseless fear creates conflict?
Why do Jihadis kill Westerners?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I've never once entertained the thought you are evil. I've placed us on equal moral platforms.
So are you saying they are all mentally ill for killing all those civilians, or 5hat there are times that people can rationalize it as being for the greater good to kill enemy civilians?
"convincing America that the radical Muslims are the enemy, a side effect is that they are convincing the Muslims too."
So if i cant criticize the ones who evil radicals, who do i criticise.
I don't know who you are or what you do when you aren't debating. I can't speak to your life. For all I know you could volunteer at a homeless shelter. I doubt it based on your expressed views, but I really don't know.
No, but perhaps you should stop equating all Muslims with people chanting death to America. Maybe stop spreading fear and hate of Muslims so that you stop creating new enemies where there weren't any.
That parenthetical is absolutely absurd.
Are you talking about the terrorists attacking civilians, or the American troops?
Muslims, no. Unvetted, yes.
So there is a massive campaign on the right to have a uniform assault on Muslims?
You are not physically attacking Muslims (to the best of my knowledge). You are spreading the fear of them.
Do you agree that we need to stop Muslims from entering the US? Do you believe they are a risk to Americans?
"If people like Trump do a good enough job convincing America that the radical Muslims are the enemy, a side effect is that they are convincing the Muslims too."
So we should embrace the radicals chanting death to america?
The primary purpose of those actions were to kill as many people as possible. To inflict a maximum amoumt of death as possible regardless of the cost. To kill for the kill?
You say that like you missed the part where they are being beaten, robbed and threatened with death.
Is it a disease to drop a bomb into an occupied building? Is it a disease to fire a machine gun into a crowd? Is it a disease to drop a nuclear weapon on a city filled with civilians?
All of these have been done by American troops. It is not mental illness. It is a conviction that they are the enemy and that what you are doing is for the greater good.
If people like Trump do a good enough job convincing America that the radical Muslims are the enemy, a side effect is that they are convincing the Muslims too. Would you ignore it if your sister was beaten and robbed for her religion, or would you want to strike back at those who did it? What about the second time? What if every time you walked down the street people insulted you and threatened you and your family? How long until you stopped seeing them as fellow Americans and started seeing them as the enemy?
You clearly said "you". As im every conservative is out im the streets jumping Muslims. Id still like you to show me where I attacked Muslims.
You don't think a Muslim understands the difference between not allowing Muslims in and not allowing individuals without information in? Im pretty sure they know the situation in the Middle East.
"And you're not playing us vs them by saying that we're beating and assaulting Muslims as a part of our platform?"
You honestly feel victimized by my pointing out the connection between rhetoric like Trump's on Muslims and the violence they are facing? Hence the wow.
I believe it is a disease to drive a truck into men, women, and children. I believe it's a disease to fly planes into 3000 people for no reason. I believe it is a disease to walk into an office building in California and kill rampantly.
The problem is that when people say "we need to stop Muslims from coming into America" it also sends a message to Muslims in America. First because it shows that they are not really welcome, and second because it encourages violence against them. I don't think you are personally going out attacking Muslims, but people are.
If you did any research you would see that you are wrong. All it takes is being convinced that the other person is the enemy. Unless you believe every member of the military is mentally diseased.
Hahaha. The point was to say that words should be able to cause radical action. If you followed my argument, you would see I maintain the position that only the mentally diseased have these tendencies.
So while you do not deny that Muslims are being beaten, robbed, and threatened with death, you feel that you are the victim for me pointing out that such actions have been encouraged by people like Trump? Wow.
Are you arguing with yourself now?
Where have I attacked Muslims?
Im not sure I understand your point. You are attacking Muslims and alienating them. How does showing that such actions can lead to violence help you support continuing to bully Muslims in America? Should you not be avoiding such a demonstration of radicalized Americans due to social isolation to avoid demonstrating the inherent flaw in your actions?
Or are you feeling that criticizing your religion is likely to trigger you going on a shooting spree?
I really don't understand how bring this up helps your position in any way?
This was a blatantly unfair statement. Harris and Klebold were sick and depraved youth.
No you have shown your sentiments, truly in ways that made that statement evident.
And you're not playing us vs them by saying that we're beating and assaulting Muslims as a part of our platform?
The only directiom neveralone and I took this is for refugees.
That isn't me being emotional. Those are all specific things that have happened to Muslims recently. Follow the link I provided for the article. It links the FBI stays for hate crimes. You claim you aren't attacking them, and I don't think you are taking to the streets beating them. But every time you turn a conversation into us vs them you alienate them a little more.
Harris and Klebold. Did words cut them deeply?
Really? I seem to recall a political candidate advocating it for protesters so they would learn not to do it again any time soon.
Nobody condones street beatings!!! That is inherently wrong no matter what political party you come from!
Still not done playing the victim. It's ok snowflake. I'm sure you have a safe space to hide in.
Isn't that your line?
Or how about when people assault you over your religious attire before stealing your property and car while making anti-christian comments. Or when you receive threatening notes on your home saying "Go home, we don't want you here #trump".
Until that happens, there is a difference between criticizing you for being a bigot and attacking you in the street. I would hope even you could somewhat understand that distinction.
Do you know how far words can cut an individual?
Remember when I said conservatives are evil, liberals are wrong? By our very nature of being conservatives, we are oppressive, racist, xenophobes who thrive on the misfortune of others. Everyone against us has claimed we are that regardless of our sentiment and true dispositions. They'll deny it, but pay attention to it. Emotions arent covered by wordplay.
OK, when someone is threatening to set you on fire over your religion, I will come to your defence. Until then, perhaps stop playing the victim and learn about the situation.
You are right, you do say that often. You may even believe it. But it isn't true. Hate crimes against Muslims happen incredibly often. More often than any time since 9/11. They are insulted on the street, they are called terrorists and told to go home, their wives, sisters and daughters are assaulted if they dare to go out in public. All these things are happening in America to Americans. You can say American Muslims are okay, but if they are being treated like the enemy those words are hollow.
So when the left criticizes Christianity at its core for being bigoted, sexist, homophobic, etc, you will come to our aid so that we arent radicalized ;)
Or is speech only acceptable for the popular narrative?
Wow, you just don't learn,or apparently read. By attacking Islam and Muslims through your actions and words, you make them feel like the enemy. Once you have made them feel they don't belong in America, they start looking for where they do. That is step one to them becoming radicalized. Either you are pretending you don't understand or you legitimately can't wrap your head around basic cause and effect. I can't tell which.
So there is absolutely no problem at all in Islam that needs to be addressed? Not even in the slightest? Everything is perfect? Who is attacking Muslims in general?
we have no problem with people inside America. they are Americans. that is the diff. their American their is no problem with them. which we say often.
they get radicalized, at least in part, when they don't feel they belong. when people like you make them feel like second class citizens, or that they are not welcome in America it makes them look somewhere else for belonging. if their neighbors hate and fear them then they are much more likely to turn to extremes.
people like you are a large part of the problem.
"like black people are not violent, and Mexicans are not lazy."
No but you say Muslims are going to be radicalized and slaughter people indiscriminately.
That drives individuals to kill men, women, and children without discretion.
You claim this: "instead all your doing is hating on a people and making those who live here, 100% citizens feel your hate, feel left out, and lash out because YOU radicalized them."
Who is hating on Muslims? For people so eager to assault the Catholic Church of the inquisition, I hear no similar charges against Islam. Why can we not criticize them for believing that putting Jews and christians to the sword gives them salvation? Im not saying all Muslims, but there is a definite problem in need of solving.
Nobody is hating Islam. Even if they were subject to hatred, that justifies senseless murder? No sane individual is willing to kill for the sake of killing. You suggest that Islam has a propensity for violence as they will easily be driven to radicalization. Radicalization is a mental disease. People dont simply radicalize.
"If they do have a natural propensity for violence as it seems you implicitly claim"
I never made that claim and thinking that is laughable as you clearly ignore your own history. a natural propensity doesn't disappear in a few generations. their propensity for violence is no bigger then your own. just like black people are not violent, and Mexicans are not lazy.
we have many refugees here. show me 1 attack.
"I radicalized them? So it is the proper human propensity to murder Americans in the name of Allah if they don't allow you into the country."
no. if you read what I wrote you would see I was talking about Muslim citizens born and raised in the US. they aren't mad because you don't them in cause they are already in. they are mad because their leaders keep talking about them as if they are assumed accomplices, or killers. while their neighbors harass them, rip off their garments, and tell them to go home. once again, American born and raised.
If they do have a natural propensity for violence as it seems you implicitly claim, all the better we should know more of them before allowing them in.
I radicalized them? So it is the proper human propensity to murder Americans in the name of Allah if they don't allow you into the country. These terrorists are disgusting individuals, and there is a mental disease in these individuals that allows them to diminish human value. I do not believe Muslims have a natural propensity for violence.
The Bowling Greene case was known bomb makers passing through the vetting process. Im not talking about citizens. Im talking about foreigners. An American is an American. Im referring to letting people into the country of whom we know absolutely nothing.
also, this vetting... is there such a thing as sufficient vetting? even from Western nations? even from our own nation where people shoot up schools, take over federal buildings, or blow up a parade and we had no idea? adequate vetting is a fantasy in any situation.
when was the last attack involving a bomb? the Boston bombing was the one and only Islamic inspired bombing and it was an amateur device they made themselves.
this is still a red herring not because it's a ludicrous presumption. it is very realistic ... except for it isn't real. not a single attack has happened from migrants, refugees, or people sneaking in.
instead all your doing is hating on a people and making those who live here, 100% citizens feel your hate, feel left out, and lash out because YOU radicalized them.
not a single foreign Muslim has done any attack on US soil for over 15 years!!!!
your stance intended to make America more safe is leading to more attacks from within America by citizens you make feel 2nd class and unwelcome.
Bomb makers were allowed into the country. Vetting amd fingerprints dont do anything unless the person has beem catalogued in Syria. We dont have a strong database to pull from in Iraq.
But fair enough. You have pointed to a single instance where the screening failed but was later caught by the FBI. That was what I asked for.
So your smoking gun is a more than 5 year old case of two people being arrested who hadn't hurt anyone in the US? It also undermines your argument that in Iraq and Afghanistan we have more information, since those two were from Iraq, not Syria. They could have been stopped had the background check been as thorough as they currently are since his fingerprints should have flagged. Do you have an example that is either more recent or at least in some way connected to Syria that backs up your fears?
Bowling Greene, Kentucky
And so you turn away those trying to escape death and save their families. This creates resentment and anger towards America. This in turn allows recruitment and radicalization. You are creating your own enemies.
No one cam ever be proven clear unless they are dead. There is always a risk. You feel that is unacceptable, I feel there is an acceptable level. Considering we have yet to see our screening fail, I believe that we are doing ok.
Everyone should be proven to be clear before coming. The Middle East specifically has an ongoing death to America rhetoric.
You are casting them all as the enemy now unless they can prove to your satisfaction that they are not. By calling for an immediate and total ban on Muslims entering the US, Trump did. Do I need to continue or do you see that the propaganda lately has targeted them?
That is an imprudent way to view it. The chances are higher if we have the two together. There is no reason to increase the risk to an unknown, unforeseeable degree. The entire speech by Comey was to say that they only know what they know, and what we know of Syria is highly limited. We can learn about an Iraqi, but not a Syrian. I dont want a ban on Muslims, I want a ban on low information countries.
If they are deprived of entry, you claim that they are more likely to be terrorists; as if Islam has a propensity for radicalization.
Who is saying we attack Muslims?
I don't at all. I posted the link to a story about the case I am referring to. Dash cam footage shows a man with his arms up shot dead by police. If they are so skittish that they feel the need to kill an unarmed man whose crime was having had his car break down, they shouldn't be wearing a badge or carrying a gun. I don't care how much stress they are under, if they can't handle it the have no business carrying a gun.
Yes, there is less information. Where you are either ignorant or dishonest is to equate less information with none. These people have spent years in camps trying to get refugee status and leave. Let's say 10,000 are going to make it to the US. Of the roughly 6.6 million in camps in Syria and 4.8 in camps elsewhere, that's not very good odds. If you were commanding terrorists, would you have able bodied fighters spend years sitting around hoping they are one of the very few to make it to the west?
Beyond that, it isn't like these people just show up and we accept them and then the board a plane. They are repeatedly interviewed, photographed, fingerprinted, retinal scans are taken and all of this is run against our database of know people with ties to terrorists.
The risk will never and can never be zero, but you are at much higher risk from Muslims born in America than immigrants or refugees. Beyond that, you are at substantially higher statistical risk of being killed by a white Christian. That doesn't mean we should attack or target Christians, it means we need to address the causes if violence and extremism. Attacking Muslims either through violence or legal persecution would only make those who currently are not radicalized to be increasingly likely to become so. They see themselves being attacked by the west and the voices saying that we are the enemy seems much more plausible and reasonable. Bans on Muslims, registries and rhetoric painting them as the enemy only serves to alienate more people and swell the ranks of those who see us as the enemy in response.
That should be prosecuted unless you mean Michael Brown and hands up dont shoot.
But dave, the problem is that in Iraq and Afghanistan there is an infrastructure of data. That is where you are correct since the process has had time to build with US intervention. The same infrastructure doesnt exist right now in Syria. We cannot vet since we dont have a strong system there in order to collect data on individuals. Comey said Syria is much more difficult than the others. I didnt lie nor misconstrue anything.
I don't wish he died but like with guns being in the area gangs will make the cops more nervous. I wish he lived. but I will also look more into the situation before I condemn the officer.
If someone is standing with their hands in the air and not moving, the presence of gangs in the area is irrelevant. They shot an unarmed man who was standing with his hands up. What justification could exist? What would satisfy you that he deserved to die for his car having broken down?
the good will also take down the bad. there are trails which are fine for the bad but the media makes it sound like every shooting is just officers wanting to kill people. this isn't right. their is a better solution than just take them all down.
weird. I never heard of this case yet I live near their. this is shady but then again it doesn't give the video or the officers reasoning. both key roles in this. Tulsa is not a fun place to begin with either. there are gangs around there. not saying he was a part of them just giving perspective.
And that is fair, but there are also racist police officers who harass people due to their race. There are bullies who abuse their power. There are police officers who have killed people in cold blood for no good reason. And they are protected from justice. Until the police start showing that their ranks will respect the law as well, the public has no way of telling the good from the bad.
Race matters because even if they are fully cooperating, black people are at a higher risk of being shot. Read the second link I posted. The guy's car stalled. Police show up and point guns at him. He puts his hands up and is standing still. They then shoot him dead. All of this on dash cam. Why did this happen?
That's a great job taking a quote out if context. You are right, he said there was always a risk since if they have never made a ripple that brought them to US attention, there is nothing to check against. The problem is that he also said the system is better than it was 8 years ago and that he is confident there are sufficient checks. By only quoting Patt of his opinion you demonstrate either that you are blindly following someone else's arguments and are ignorant of the facts, or you are attempting to intentionally mislead people in spite of knowing he does not agree with your opinion.
why does the color matter? or else it shouldn't. on a shooting itself. I can't condemn them without knowing the situations in detail. think about every day they risk there life. every day they say they love their family. they are scared everyday might be the last time they see there family.
why does the color matter? or else it shouldn't. on a shooting itself. I can't condemn them without knowing the situations in detail. think about every day they risk there life. every day they say they love their family. they are scared everyday might be the last time they see there family.
How often are police charged after shooting someone? How often when it is an unarmed young black person? Are police justified shooting an unarmed 17 year old for opening his door when they knock?
Its not that. I pray that if I ever needed to defend myself, I would be given a fair trial and treated as innocent until proven guilty. People dont like the narrative of lynching a cop during and after a trial in which charges are not taken. Im against that entirely.
The FBI director stated that there was nothing to vet because you may not query what you cannot query. There is no database to reference at all from. Its not a red herring.
Them why are groups advocating for it labeled terrorists? Why do police protect each other in these cases?
I would support that. the "inadequate vetting" is a red herring. there is no such thing as completely safe vetting, even from Western nations. we can't even tell when our own citizens go bonkers, and we have full records of them.
the fact is, all the terrorists in this nation are either right wing extremists, or US born Muslims rejecting the society that openly demonizes, shames, and hates them. migrants are some of the most grateful and law abiding residents of this nation, including the muslims.
I dont think anybody would be willing to support that. The big push of to refuse refugees with inadequate vetting identification.
Nobody is against tha
Bad people arent sociopaths 99% of the time. Do you believe Mao Zedong intended for the Great Leap Forward to be a disaster?
And no one opposes background checks. But I do oppose shutting borders to all Muslims as being a horrible and bigoted response. Trump and the KKK however lump all Muslims together, hence why they support him.
No, the solution is to hold those who shoot innocent people to death accountable. I don't understand why anyone is against that.
it's not loaded at all. her perception is her own. we are human. she may have the wrong solution (in your opinion) but she has consistently worked to improve the nation.
on the other hand Republicans LEADERSHIP continues to ACTIVELY allow money to have a greater role in politics, drowning out the voices of those who don't talk green. on every policy they are disingenuous, sometimes to the other party (requiring id's to vote then closing locations to get ids) sometimes their own people (money in politics, factories without jobs, helping big business not small, fighting for the land for the people then leasing it to big industry)
their perceptions of what is best for the people is irrelevant if it's correct, cause that is not their goal. they are not representing you. and they promote the propaganda demonizing the other side, to make sure you don't look at what they are really doing.
and as to the racist thing, one can be a racist and not evil, just misguided, ignorant, sheepish, and/or stubborn. not all racists are for stringing up black people, some just assume they are all criminals or lazy, and that is also racist, but in no way evil.
but that's not the issue. only ignorant liberals say ALL conservatives are racist. that's like 150 million people!!!! it's not racist but that kind of generalization is a former of bigotry. but the fact is there are racists among you. within the Republican party. and if you all deny it, we are stuck on this general point of denial/accusation and increase polarization.
and to repeat, all groups have racists, but conservative MAINSTREAM MEDIA routinely and blatantly hates on the left as traitors and other accusations. that is not the same as "I've heard nobodies say xyz"
please recognize the difference between some nobodies, and mass consumed media to a huge audience that agrees with them.
most of us(I hope) aren't for that entirely. there are terrorist in their ranks. I would support a thorough background check. but no more than that.
so the solution is to punish the good with the bad? let's try to find something else out.
The targeting of Muslims for watch lists and registries.
There's a fundamental flaw there. BLM and other groups are not against the police, nor do they want to attack them (barring the extremists). They want police to be held accountable for their actions. Liberals know not all police are bad, they just have no way of telling the good from bad because there is no transparency.
What is one principal that appeals to the KKK that is not perverted to fit their agenda?
do u know the exact issues they agree with? my only guess is when people from the left wants to raze the police for one police officer and we say their not all racist.
If they claim to support the same platform you do, who am I to disagree? I understand you can't stop people from endorsing your party, but if your policies appeal to racists, there may be an issue with your policies.
Nobody likes the KKK. No party is for oppression or racism. It doesnt matter who they affiliate with.
I in no way think conservatism is racist. I know Trump is by his language and business practices. I think other high level conservatives are by their words and actions as well. I think some conservative supporters are because they call other races inferior, use racist terms, and are otherwise blatantly racist. By no means are all conservatives racist, but can you honestly tell me the KKK, who espouse to speak for conservative Christians, are not racist? There is an element of truth to calling conservatives racist if they are siding with the KKK and calling BLM a terrorist group, but only those who are doing so. The problem at this point is the racist voices seem to shout louder than the reasonable ones.
That is a rather loaded question. Her perception is her own. I agree, most republicans in congress are flimsy.
all politicians work under the table. basic deals behind closed doors for a you vote this and like vote that is under the table and to be expected. not decried. I didn't mean it literally.
I mean backstabbing you and passing legislation counter to their promise.
like saying they will cut regulations for small businesses then cut the regulations that help big oil and other big lobby groups instead. what goals has Hillary worked towards that were counter to what in her view was best for the nation?
If we are going to be pedantic, I said they believe they are evil. This is obvious through calling conservatism racist. If you agree that racism is evil, then branding conservatives as rascist is an implication of evil (since if you are defined by racism).
no liberal says any and all regulations are good. it is the right the bastardized and demonized the word into something evil and malicous. in general regulations are wonderful. specifics are case by case. still looking for someone to point out examples of bad regulations tho.
businesses are profiting, they aren't reinvesting because they are buying back their own stocks. if the issue is small businesses then the left will gladly work with you, but how many small businesses are hurt by the epa? that's mostly big oil fighting that fight, not mom and pop. once again your leaders talk one way, then enrich themselves, and trump is doing the same.
still no examples of mainstream liberals calling conservatives evil?
and now liberals basardizing regulations?
please provide some examples cause it seems you have a lot of things backwards.
The Great Society was already to be instated by government intervention (aren't I clever?). Regulations is such a ridiculous word to use. It is far too generic and has been bastardized by the left as a talking point. And how is fundamentally changing (paraphrasing Obama here) the United States pleasing the founders? How have regulations on businesses allowed them to grow. Many sit below employment brackets as hiring an employee would be disastrous. And where is this sense that Capitalism is perfect? Nobody believes that, but hundreds of years of progress shows that it is pretty efficient.
And can you tell me with utmost sincerity that Hillary was not working under the table?
also. please can you return to the liberals think conservatives are evil?
I made an argument that it is completely the other way around and it is conservatives consistently bashing liberals as traitors and satanists. can you tell me where you got your idea from?
is it bad to dream? to work to achieve a greater society? is that not what the forefathers strived for? do you believe they felt, despite their great accomplishment, that their work was done and they achieved perfection? to stop would be un-American.
liberals are not naive idealists, if we were we would trust our wealthy to reinvest and the rosy picture Republicans paint. THAT is naive. we must pass laws that ensure our prosperity, and that may require a bigger government than "naive and idealist" conservatives (see what I did there :) feel is necessary because they trust the private sector to behave and not be filled with fallible, greedy, self-interested humans. I feel you have things reversed.
I'm not asking you to breach on those issues. I understand them. well maybe the gun issue you guys are a little off the wall. the government is also a tool. it can be a great tool, but it should not be unregulated or it can be dangerous. same with guns. sensible regulation is necessary, but yall think it's just a conspiracy to slowly take away your guns instead of common sense actions to protect our citizens.
WHAT I AM ASKING FROM YOU is to pick leaders who will represent these understandable views without making moves to silence your voice and screw our nation. it's the under the table choices that your representatives do not talk about on the campaign trail that disturb me.
Some people wouldn't have been. Lol
i was joking
Neither of those are okay. Both demonstrate your bias and inability to have a normal, rational conversation.
Ok. its okay to say them retards. but it isnt okay to say they arent humans.
liberals are pure retards XD
he has undergone several genetical mutations. He isnt a human anymore. OH MY GOD. LMAO. ITS A CATASTROPHE.
thereal is not a human.
I choose not to breach on abortion because I love the unborn. I dont breach on guns out of respect to the Constitution. I see liberals as naive, Utopian dreamers who give too much credit to the disposition of man. I believe Conservatism emphasises individual fallibility.
"Ive come idealize to the belief that Conservatives think liberals are wrong, but Liberals think conservatives are evil. Do you really think there is no compassion within Conservatives?"
funny you would see it that way. I can give countless examples of extremely popular conservatives bashing liberals as everything from traitors to hate mongers. I'd love for you to find anything remotely similar on any liberal media with a similar viewership.
I do think your leadership is evil. if I had to be completely blunt about my feelings to conservatives as a whole are foolish sheep with most often an idealistic heart and minimal education. or a very rich person who knows exactly what they are doing. but that is just my personal opinion.
I get it. they hook you with issues you CAN'T compromise on. abortion. guns (even tho you can but the NRA has fed yall the slippery slope conspiracy so effectively) then pass policies that lower your voice and enrich special interests regardless of the consequences.
There's no point in speaking since the entire topic is trivial.
perhaps a funny comment would make sense but a silent vote?
and of course no one is against education per se, but one can believe that education is teaching false or misleading information, such as a round earth or evolution.
now perhaps you really did a to be funny protest vote. or maybe that is your true stance. I'm just pointing out the facts I see and allowing you to interpret them for us.
Nobody is against education. Ive come idealize to the belief that Conservatives think liberals are wrong, but Liberals think conservatives are evil. Do you really think there is no compassion within Conservatives? No reason? That there is no distinction between qualms over a system and an institution?
Have you no sense of humor? The argument was established as a joke!
would some of the agrees care to speak? you know we can see who voted how from your profiles.
in particular a person I debate with often agreed to this and to the world is flat. quite a shock, but does explain some of your hostile stances on education.
feed the troll? this is an 8 to 10!
it's not about trolls, it's about extremists, radicals, and idiots. and they are not a small minority here (app and US)
Why are people feeding the trolls? It's clear that this is either a troll topic or meant to be inflammatory with no real debate. I just flag this crap and hope the mod bans these idiots
So in your world view, disagreeing with your political views is a sickness? Wow, that is a very limited way to learn and think.
thats what a liberal would say. Im not surprised though, a sicko would never admit to being one.
This is rather telling about your mentality. Both liberals and conservatives are human. Both want what is best for their nation and its people. They just disagree about what that is.