Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DJQuag

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23]
General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 25, 2016, 11:41:04 AM »
"At any rate Hillary offers the standard political-person package, and Bernie is more of a regular guy who fights for what he believes in."

This is pretty much why I'm a Sanders guy, and also the reason that I supported Obama in 08 even when he was still in the "This is a cute campaign and all, but it's just damaging Clinton's chances in the general," stages.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too
« on: January 25, 2016, 11:37:02 AM »

I agree with pretty much all of this.  I grew up in Arizona, and now live in Europe, so I've seen immigration issues from different angles.

The one thing I would add is that it is essential to assimilate immigrants into the culture. When you have second and third generation descendents of Islamic immigrants who still believe things like democracy is evil, and women should wear burkas, then that becomes a very real problem. Europe still hasn't experienced the full consequences of that,  and it's going to get a lot uglier before it gets better.

General Comments / Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« on: January 23, 2016, 10:51:44 AM »
Because I don't support the policies of Nader and Buchanon. I support the policies of Sanders, and want him to be President.

I don't really care if he could convince the legislature to pass his reforms or not. A European style socialist sitting on the Presidential soapbox for four years, getting a chance to sell his ideas to the public, would make it entirely worthwhile to me. Because Sanders, unlike the other candidates, has always been straightforward and open about his policy positions, and he wouldn't spend his first four years in power worrying about how his actions would affect the next election.

I'll say this, as well. I've never really liked H Clinton, but I was willing to hold my nose and vote for her over most Republicans. Her hypocrisy, attitude, and the way her supporters have been acting have just about convinced me to not vote at all if she wins the Democratic nomination.

General Comments / Re: The Jihadist Next Door
« on: January 22, 2016, 12:16:57 PM »
It's definitely blocked in the UK, because it was on broadcast television here. From all of the Redditors who were able to watch it on YouTube,  I'm guessing that it's not blocked in the US.

General Comments / The Jihadist Next Door
« on: January 21, 2016, 05:24:53 PM »
For those of you who are interested in what happens when you allow savages to import their customs and beliefs with them, and allow them to keep said customs in the name of diversity and tolerance.

The YouTube link from there should be unblocked in the US. Channel 4 recently spent two years interviewing extremists living in the UK, one of which is suspected of being the new Jihadi John.

General Comments / Re: So about this moon shot...
« on: January 14, 2016, 11:29:05 PM »
It was just a bit of political happy talk.

There is no cure for cancer, because cancer is not one disease. For example, lung cancer will be different from liver cancer, but there is also the fact that each different type of lung cancer is going to need a different treatment or "cure."

General Comments / Re: Terrorized Americans
« on: January 09, 2016, 04:39:53 PM »

This is where hate speech laws lead.

Thankfully, Parliament amended the law after a few dozen incidents l ike this one.

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: January 09, 2016, 02:26:07 PM »
How many refugees and asylum seekers do you all think the US is going to have to allow in before they can start having parties like they had in Cologne on New Years Eve?

General Comments / Re: Terrorized Americans
« on: January 05, 2016, 02:02:00 AM »
The Amendment doesn't mention no unreasonable searches and seizures unless planes are about to hit the Twin Towers.

Like Franklin said, give up liberty for safety, and you deserve to lose both.

If there is no warrant then there can be no legal search and seizure of citizen phone records.  The Fourth Amendment is pretty explicit.

Yes. Even if I knew this program would save lives tomorrow, even they included mine or loves, I'd end the NSA wiretapping tonight. And frankly, anyone who goes along with it because it makes them feel safer or because "I haven't done anything wrong," is pretty damned cowardly.

General Comments / Re: Terrorized Americans
« on: January 05, 2016, 01:52:20 AM »
I haven't yet found a definition online for hate speech that doesn't include merely expressing hatred or dislike for a certain group.

I'm in complete agreement with Seriati. When it comes to the actual crimes,  and not just hurt feelings,  the laws are already in place to punish wrongdoers without hate speech legislation.

So, funny story from over here in England. The UK has some really disgusting hate speech laws. You really can be imprisoned just for offending someone.

So, a few months back there is this Arab woman working at a university in London. Said woman is an SJW extraordinare,  and before long she's started a club that expressly forbids white males from attending. She got some unwanted attention for this, and in response she took to Twitter, posting tweets that included the opinion that all white people just needed to die.

In a shocking twist, someone actually reported her to the police, and she was arrested on hate speech charges. Naturally, the left only meant for this law to be used against whites, and were very upset that poor Bahar Mustafa was charged. A few days ago, the charges were quietly dropped.

Is anyone really surprised by this? For extra credit, can anyone guess in which manner Pyrtolin is going to argue that this no whites club and call for genocide isn't hate speech and racism?

General Comments / Re: Hell bent on the Caliphate
« on: December 24, 2015, 05:09:06 PM »
Pete, here's a much better example.

An SJW would accuse someone who disagreed with the Congressman of needing to check their privilege or similar nonsense. The especially cute ones who say that you're okay with or don't care about rape.

General Comments / Re: Hell bent on the Caliphate
« on: December 24, 2015, 04:43:27 PM »
My complaint was that when caught in a false statement Pyr blames others for taking his false remarks "out of context."
I would be far happier with the level of discussion on this forum if every time I identified what appeared to be a false statement, I got a clarification that modified or reinterpreted the original statement to be more in line with what we have established to be the truth. So the behavior that you are asserting the Pyr demonstrates is actually a higher level of responsiveness than what I encounter all to frequently here.

Greg Davidson, what's the end goal here? These people will say the words you want them to say, or they won't. At the end of the day, we're supposed to be arguing for and against ideas, not people.

ETA-Clarification. Referring to you being upset about some people not admitting when they're wrong.

General Comments / Re: Hell bent on the Caliphate
« on: December 22, 2015, 06:16:00 PM »
Exhibit A.

General Comments / Re: Hell bent on the Caliphate
« on: December 22, 2015, 04:48:21 PM »
I just offered my own opinion,  Pete.  It has to be an extreme for me to whistle a post. I'm normally the very last person to do so.

SJW is short term for social justice warrior. Basically, the type of progressive who tries to achieve their goals by making straight people, white people, males, and most especially all three feel guilty for what they are, even if they themselves have never done a thing to hurt a minority.

General Comments / Re: Hell bent on the Caliphate
« on: December 22, 2015, 05:26:57 AM »
Pete, I enjoy poking SJW's as much as the next guy, but don't you think lumping BLM with the IRA and those other groups is a bit ridiculous?

General Comments / Re: DNC Software Breach
« on: December 22, 2015, 05:18:44 AM »
If it comes to it, I'll vote for Clinton while holding my nose. A much better option then Cruz or Trump.

But I'm pretty sure that I'll always resent her for not being Sanders. I have yet to find an issue that I disagree with him on.

I was under the assumption that you have to at least be physically present in the country,  or a citizen or resident if abroad, for Constitutional rights to apply. I don't see how 1st Amendment rights apply to potential refugees who are not Americans and have never lived there.

I can see how people might morally and ethically have issue with not allowing Muslims to immigrate here, but I don't see a legal problem.

Now,  if the Muslim turns around five minutes after entry and says he was just kidding, Allahu akbar,  well then he IS protected.

Which is to say, you couldn't kick them out or penalise them if they immediately went back to Islam after being granted entry. The 1st Amendment would apply there.

Again, I think you grossly misapprehend Islam when you say that it is merely a religion and not an ideology. I think your characterization would offend most of the world's Muslims.
Islam includes ideologies. I'm not sure how it's a disservice that I point out taht it's a large portfolio of smaller pieces, and not an individual small piece. That doesn't change the fact that our laws should pick out the specific pieces that we find harmful an prohit those instead of blindly targeting the entire body of faith regardless of individual ideology

Interesting. Based on this statement, you would think that you wouldn't have a problem with a law that forbids religious courts from stripping human rights from people without specifying any one religion that it is referring to.

And yet, when people in Texas passed a law like that,  one that targeted behaviours and not a specific region,  you had a problem.

Somehow,  I'm not surprised.

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23]