/linked/2017/01/28/cook

Comments

anonymous:
Fuck islam, fuck muslims. That cancer of a religion has no place in democratic societies.

Send all these hateful pieces of shit where they came from.
11:36 pm — Saturday, 28 January 2017
To Be Fair:
Yeah, because knee-jerk bigotry is exactly what democratic societies need to prosper.
11:49 pm — Saturday, 28 January 2017
anonymous:
>knee-jerk bigotry

Why don't you go to a muslim country and see how Islam treats non-muslims you stupid piece of libtard shit.

Go read Quran and see what Islam says about non-muslims.

There isn't a single country in which Muslims and non-muslims coexist peacefully.

Unless you want your kids to live in a caliphate, start fighting against the Islamic cancer.
12:03 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
I'm pretty sure you're too stupid to know this, but the people who are fleeing Muslim countires tend not to be extremists. It's the extremists who are persecuting them, who they are trying to escape.

So, by sending them back, you're just creating more extremism, and denying the chance for the US to have more allies in the world.
12:17 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
anonymous:
>I'm pretty sure you're too stupid to know this, but the people who are fleeing Muslim countires tend not to be extremists.

Are you fucking stupid??? Who the fuck do you think murdered all those Europeans? Who the fuck murdered people in San Bernardino? Who the fuck murdered all those gay people in Orlando?

it's Islamists and children of Ilsmist immigrants.

Go to fucking UK and visit some of the SHARIA ONLY ZONES and see what the West will look like if we allow them to conquer us.
12:23 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
You're fucking stupid.

This unthinking bigotry only leads to more extremism and more conflict. If you want to rid the world of things like Sharia law and religious indoctrination, then you need to encourage people around the world to adopt liberal American values. Lead by example.

All you're doing with your hatred is recruiting more terrorists. Why do you support terrorism so much?
12:39 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
anonymous:
Yes, if we prevent Islamists from entering our country, then more Islamists will attack and kill us.

As the Quran commands.
12:58 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Not Anonymous:
The people "fleeing Muslim countries" are often not compatible with Western liberal democracies.

Time to put the 'America is melting pot and a nation of immigrants' myth to bed. America is a Western Christian resting on the bedrock of English Common Law.

Immigration should exist to serve a country. It hasn't in the West since 1965.

Trump's quite moderate and weak on the issue of immigration.

Apparently, noticing facts is 'unthinking bigotry' in TBF's world. Terrorists aren't motivated by anon's hatred. They are motivated by Islam.
1:02 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
anonymous:
All you retarded libshits:

Name ONE country where muslim majority does not prosecute Christians.

Just one!

Name ONE country where mulsim majority does not prosecute gays.

Just one!
1:06 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
anonymous:
"Moderate" islam myth:

![https://i.imgur.com/TZR5I61.png](https://i.imgur.com/TZR5I61.png)
1:08 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Hairy Lime:
Do you even nuance, bro?

According to @anonymous' logic, *all* Catholics are boy fuckers because of a few priests.
1:15 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
>If you want to rid the world of things like Sharia law and religious indoctrination, then you need to encourage people around the world to adopt liberal American values. Lead by example.

You are completely out to lunch.

Do you honestly think you are going to convince anyone into thinking the American way?

Liberal American values. What does that even mean?

These Islamists are fucking bonkers, willing to fly planes into buildings. Yeah lets just teach em "American values". That will convince them.

Islam is a religion of hatred, death and removing rights from people.

I don't like any religion in particular, but Islam is clearly a cancer on this planet. No other religion is responsible for the level of the shit they pull in the world today.

Draw a picture of Mohammad and watch them go fucking bananas like a bunch of crazed fanatics. No thanks. Fuck em.

1:20 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Not Anonymous:
Draw a picture of Mohammed and watch them go fucking bananas like a bunch of crazed fanatics.

Utter a microaggression and watch leftists go fucking bananas like a bunch of crazed fanatics.

That the left defends their fellow fanatics should surprise no one.
1:26 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
Forget about the pussy.

Grab em by the falafel balls.
1:40 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
>Liberal American values. What does that even mean?

Oh, I dunno. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Multiculturalism. Human rights. Peace. Prosperity. Things like that.

Although I'm not surprised that you're too stupid to understand what America represents.

>These Islamists are fucking bonkers, willing to fly planes into buildings.

There are millions of Muslims in the world. Only a handful have flown planes into buildings or committed terrorist acts.

A similar number of Christian Americans have committed terrorist acts. So, by your logic, all Americans are fucking bonkers terrorists.

>Yeah lets just teach em "American values". That will convince them.

Well, yeah. It would. It's a failure of America to spread its values that has led to terrorist attacks. Waging pointless wars tends to have that effect.

>No other religion is responsible for the level of the shit they pull in the world today.

How can a religion be responsible for anything? it's an abstract concept. Only the people who follow a religion can commit actions. And the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful.

>Draw a picture of Mohammad and watch them go fucking bananas like a bunch of crazed fanatics. No thanks. Fuck em.

Again, you're conflating the actions of the vast majority with those of a tiny minority.

The people fleeing these countries often don't know that there is any other culture than Islam. Many of them are highly receptive to Western values. telling them to fuck off and stereotyping them only recruits more extremists and terrorists.

If you are so against Islam's cultural influence, then why would you supportnthese actions by Trump and the other fascists, that only serve to expand radical Islamist influence?
1:44 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
anonymous:
>According to @anonymous' logic, all Catholics are boy fuckers because of a few priests.



Can't you read the trucking graph you shithead? That's NOT what I'm saying at all.


FACTS are that unless you want to live under Sharia, DO NOT ALLOW MUSLIMS INTO YOUR COUNTRY!

Mulsims have 5x more kids than Christians and in only a generation they can become a majority.

And I'm still waiting for an example of a SINGLE country where majority muslims don't oppress Christians, Jews and gays.

Give me some proof you retarded liberal shitheads.
1:44 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
anonymous:
![https://i.imgur.com/svs0Jhf.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/svs0Jhf.jpg)
1:45 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
elbowroom:
@anonymous

> "Moderate" islam myth:

Thanks for the Pew research data. I'm really amused that you don't see any irony and how silly that there are people who actually think this is about national security. I'll explain.

Trump didn't ban any of the country in the Pew research data except one, Iraq. Every "moderate" Muslim from your data is still free to visit the USA except Iraq because Trump didn't ban those countries.

Do you know what's even more bizarre? The terrorists behind 9/11, the brothers behind the Boston Bombing attack, the Fort Hood shooter's parents - since he was born in the USA - they would all still be free to enter the country because none of their countries are banned. Citizens of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Kyrgyzstan are all still free to enter the USA.

If someone crazy enough to implement a policy that's supposed to prevent terrorists from entering the country, the most obvious path would be to ban the countries who produced terrorists, or if you're more overtly nutty, you would ban the countries where Islam is the national religion. But none of that happened.

Thus we can safely conclude this has nothing to do with preventing dangerous "terrorists". Either Trump somehow erroneously believed the aforementioned terrorists are from the countries just banned or he's just appealing to his supporters who think this is actually about preventing Islamic terrorist attacks while protecting his business interests in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia . Which do you think it is?
2:11 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
>Oh, I dunno. Freedom of speech.

The last thing that Liberal America wants is freedom of speech. Enjoy your special snowflake spaces where only like minds are allowed a voice and everyone else gets shut down.

>I'm not surprised that you're too stupid to understand

Classic ad hominem attack by someone who is unwilling to hear a different point of view.

To you I say lots of luck convincing anyone of anything by calling them too stupid to understand.

>It's a failure of America to spread its values that has led to terrorist attacks.

See above. If it's you spreading the values then we are in for a world of hurt.

>Many of them are highly receptive to Western values.

Many of them are also rapists, terrorists, and downright dirtballs.

>why would you supportnthese actions by Trump and the other fascists, that only serve to expand radical Islamist influence?

So we agree on one thing. Radical Islam is a problem and is expanding.

The reason why we disagree. Its the Leftist Fascists who are making it happen. They stifle speech and welcome terrorists with open arms.

To finish I wan't to thank you for a decent debate. I could do without the stupid name calling but otherwise you constructed a fine rebuttal.

We can respectfully disagree and that is fine with me.
2:22 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
>The last thing that Liberal America wants is freedom of speech. Enjoy your special snowflake spaces where only like minds are allowed a voice and everyone else gets shut down.

You mean, like Breitbar, or the Trump administration?

>Classic ad hominem attack by someone who is unwilling to hear a different point of view.

You obviously don't understand what an adhominem argument is.

>Many of them are also rapists, terrorists, and downright dirtballs.

No more than the average person born in America. Probably a lot fewer.

>So we agree on one thing. Radical Islam is a problem and is expanding.

Yes.

>The reason why we disagree. Its the Leftist Fascists who are making it happen. They stifle speech and welcome terrorists with open arms.

That's clearly untrue. The rise of radical Islam is mostly because of right-wing governments' enthusiasm for waging war in Islamic countries. And the majority of terrorist attacks on American soil have been perpetrated by right-wingers.

Conservative and evangelical Christians have a lot more in common with radical Islam than liberals do. They are the main groups that want to impose their regressive religious beliefs on America.

It's not leftists or liberals who are stifling freedom of speech, that's all on the right, who are crying for a safe space free of anybody who looks different to them.
2:34 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
elbowroom:
@Dicknose

> These Islamists are fucking bonkers, willing to fly planes into buildings. Yeah lets just teach em "American values". That will convince them.

That's the craziest part of this policy, the fact you and others are somehow tricked by Trump to believe this policy does anything.

None of the countries where "Islamists willing to fly planes into buildings" in 9/11 actually came from was banned. Not a single one of them was from the countries banned by Trump. Boston Bombers weren't. Even Fort Hood shooter's parents weren't from any of those countries.

If you're banning "Muslims incompatible with Western values". Shouldn't you actually, you know, ban the countries where the notable terrorists were born and the largest population of muslims live such as Saudi, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia?
2:44 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Calling someone "too stupid to understand" fits that definition perfectly.

Telling someone to fuck off is just telling them to fuck off. It's not like calling them a "fucktard", which if you look it up you will see a picture of John Gruber.

Anyway we are not going to agree here. We could go back and forth until the cow jumps over the moon.

Which is fine. The world is a big enough sphere for all of us.

Sometimes the best we can do is try to call each other out on each others bullshit. Which I think we both did nicely.
2:56 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
anonymous:
That's a great idea - maybe we should ban those next. We have military bases in those places though.
2:58 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
@elbowroom

I am no fan of Trump and didn't vote for him and am tricked by no one.

Islam is cancer.

Most all religion is cancer.
3:01 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Hairy Lime:
@anonymous, I apologize, I failed to draw a proper parallel. According to your logic, all christians (all flavors) are boy fuckers because some Catholic priests were. Because, of course, anyone who identifies with a religion--even if it's only for the family get-togethers, the food, or the cultural aspects of it--only subscribes to the batshit craziest, version of it.

Your graph is stupid, and you sound like a scaredy pants crybaby. I'm willing to bet that you've also never knowingly met a Muslim in real life, you live in some white-bread hellhole that neither ISIS nor the rest of America gives a shit about, and you you've never owned a passport. Man up, pussy, before Trump grabs you.
3:07 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
elbowroom:
@anonymous

What do you mean "maybe"? Those are the countries where the actual terrorists came from and the muslims surveyed in the data you quoted live.

You just told us, very loudly, how dangerous those moderate muslims are. Trump didn't ban any of them except Iraqs.

If you're so worried about those dangerous muslims, how on the earth can you not be going picketing outside criticizing Trump for not banning those dangerous countries first?

I just can't believe the simple lack of critical thinking from you and other Trump supporters. For this policy I can't help but to state he's just doing it for the show and doesn't want to ban muslims who actually give him money.
3:08 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
>I can't help but to state he's just doing it for the show

Bingo.

You get it.

Buckle up for the shitshow of our lives.

And Islam is cancer.
4:01 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Not Anonymous:
Besides some vague "it's against our values!" I have yet to see anyone argue why we shouldn't limit migrants based on country of origin.
4:10 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
Besides some vague "it's for our values!" I have yet to see anyone argue why we should not limit migrants based on country of origin.
4:20 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
>ad ho·mi·nem ˌad ˈhämənəm/ adverb & adjective 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

>Calling someone "too stupid to understand" fits that definition perfectly.

That was just an insult. It was not a part of my argument, therefore not an ad hominem.
4:36 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
>Besides some vague "it's against our values!" I have yet to see anyone argue why we shouldn't limit migrants based on country of origin.

1. It's against our values (why shouldn't that count as an argument?)

2. It's fucking stupid and makes no sense.

How about you make an argument *for* it? It's usually up to the person making an argument to justify it.
4:40 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Thomas Cook:
>Good for him for stating his opposition, but it could have been stronger, and should have mentioned Trump by name.

No. As a shareholder, Tim Cook's statement was exactly the right one. Nosediving into "stronger" political attacks and mentioning names is NOT what we need Tim Cook to be doing.

Does Gruber understand anything about business? Just because he can make political posts using obscenities on his overvalued blog doesn't mean a multinational hundred billion dollar corporation with an actual customer base should be doing the same thing.
5:37 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
>(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

>That was just an insult. It was not a part of my argument, therefore not an ad hominem.

Lets repeat in case you missed that: directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Then you say: That was just an insult. It was not a part of my argument

Are you even reading what you are writing?

You are too much.
5:39 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Stroke! Stroke!:
Bureaucracy: "we can't possibly check all these people, there are too many."

Executive branch: "what if we reduced your caseload?"

Bureaucracy: "sure, that would work."


Executive branch: "the flow of people, it stops."


Bureaucracy: "well that wasn't what we expected, but it'll work."

Life sucks for the people from those 7 countries, but life sucks in those 7 countries already for the most part. They should be used to it by now.

At least they can still cross the Mexican border for a little while longer.
5:46 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Not Anonymous:
TBF, you offered no argument except for the ad hominem.

And you still offered no argument!

Because you don't have one. You have a mood. You have a feeling. You have outrage lodged in your brain by Vox or John Oliver or Rachel Maddow which are you confusing with an argument.
7:45 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
@Dicknose:

>Lets repeat in case you missed that: directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

>Then you say: That was just an insult. It was not a part of my argument

Let's see the part that you missed:

>(of an argument or reaction)

An argument is only *ad hominem* when the person making the insult is saying that the opponent's argument is invalid **because** of the insult.

Note that I did not do this. My insult was unrelated to validity, or lack thereof, of the argument.

I'm also not sure where you cut-and-pasted your definition from, but it's a pretty poorly constructed definition.

8:22 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Not Anonymous:
Losing the argument (by not having an argument), TBF resorts to contorting the definition of ad hominem to pretend he didn't do exactly what he did do.

For his next act, counting angels on the head of a pin.
9:25 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
>Losing the argument (by not having an argument), TBF resorts to contorting the definition of ad hominem to pretend he didn't do exactly what he did do.

Sure, believe what you want to believe. It's a post-factual world after all.
10:30 am — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
>I'm also not sure where you cut-and-pasted your definition from

I typed "ad hominem" into Google.

Anyway I think I am done with this one. It was fun while it lasted.

Cheers!
5:20 pm — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Stroke! Stroke!:
Everyone Obama killed with a drone was Muslim...so wasn't he targeting Muslims?
5:36 pm — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
@Dicknose

>I typed "ad hominem" into Google.

That's funny, I did the same thing, and got a much more accurate definition as the first result:

>Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

>Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

8:51 pm — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
Stroke! Stroke!:

>Everyone Obama killed with a drone was Muslim...so wasn't he targeting Muslims?

no, he was targeting terrorists or suspected terrorists. he wasn't targeting random people because of their religion, as Trump is doing.

What Trump is doing is blatantantly unconstitutional. Which is interesting, because right-wing-nuts were always going on about how Obama hates the constiution and how he was going to take people's guns away (both of which are untrue) - and then trump gets elected, and violates several clauses of the constitution in his first week.
8:56 pm — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Not Anonymous:
TBF, do you read anything you write?

This new definition of ad hominem is exactly what you did and all you ever do. You clutch your pearls and hurl invective before running off to your safe space.

This new definition precisely contradicts what you last posted: "An argument is only ad hominem when the person making the insult is saying that the opponent's argument is invalid BECAUSE of the insult."

Drone strikes? Really? Did the drone politely ask these individuals if they were indeed the suspected terrorists and try them on the spot? Or is the DoD profiling? Because profiling works.

It's an appropriate temporary measure until more rigorous screening is adopted.

The bans are not unconstitutional. No one has the right to come to the United State, to visit or to move. My only disappointment is that Saudi Arabia was not included. The ACLU is leaning on constitutional protections enjoyed by citizens (you'll have to look that one up) and applying them to foreign nationals.

Where he is wrong is on the issue of green card holders, thoughI'm happy to revisit the value of their residency status.
10:09 pm — Sunday, 29 January 2017
Dicknose:
What if... and it's a big motherfucking hypothetical IF.

But what if Donald Trump with a stroke of a pen just saved some american lives with this executive order.

And the only casualties were a relatively small group of immigrants being inconvenienced. But everyone is still alive.

Of course to be a victim of terrorism is vanishingly small. Roll the dice with planes flown into buildings and trucks driven into crowds of people. But it does happen, and when it happens it's not fun for anyone.

>My only disappointment is that Saudi Arabia was not included

100% agreed. Those were the guys that flew into the World Trade Center.

We can't stop crazy people all of the time, but we can at least try by keeping them out of the country in the first place.

It's no wonder some people want to remove the guns. But that is never going to happen.
11:39 pm — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
>This new definition precisely contradicts what you last posted: "An argument is only ad hominem when the person making the insult is saying that the opponent's argument is invalid BECAUSE of the insult."

Except it doesn't. the insult was not the basis of my argument. I made an argument that was separate to the personal insult.

You really need to learn to read and understand simple concepts.

>Drone strikes? Really? Did the drone politely ask these individuals if they were indeed the suspected terrorists and try them on the spot? Or is the DoD profiling? Because profiling works.

I didn't say anything about the validity of the drone strikes. I think they're not a very good idea.

All I was saying is that the people targeted by drone strikes were not targeted because of their religion, but because of other reasons.

>It's an appropriate temporary measure until more rigorous screening is adopted.

It's absolutely not appropriate.

>The bans are not unconstitutional. No one has the right to come to the United State, to visit or to move.

It absolutely is unconstitutional. US citizens and residents, and people with working Visas are being affected by this. It isn't just new immigrants or refugees.

11:59 pm — Sunday, 29 January 2017
To Be Fair:
>We can't stop crazy people all of the time, but we can at least try by keeping them out of the country in the first place.

terrorists are determined. the idea that this will stop any terrorists is pure fantasy. The only people it will stop are legitimate immigrants and refugees. Terrorists will simply find a workaround.

It's a useless waste of money, and a horrible overreach of federal power. I thought conservatives were supposed to be all about States' rights and limited federal government?
12:03 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
Dicknose:
>It absolutely is unconstitutional.

No it isn't. Citation please.

>The only people it will stop are legitimate immigrants and refugees. Terrorists will simply find a workaround.

Please read my comment again. I was giving a reaching hypothetical. A shot in the dark. But thanks for cherry picking.

>I thought conservatives....

You know absolutely nothing about me, my beliefs and why I vote and think the way that I do.

For all you know I am putting on an act just to piss you off and make you look like a jackass.

Which honestly seems to be working quite well.
12:43 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
elbowroom:
@ Dicknose:
> What if... and it's a big motherfucking hypothetical IF.
> But what if Donald Trump with a stroke of a pen just saved some american lives with this executive order.

@Not Anonymous:
> It's an appropriate temporary measure until more rigorous screening is adopted.

I can't believe you guys are still discussing this seriously. Let me repeat myself.

The five largest muslim populations are as follows, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria.

Guess how many of them are in the banned list? None

How many 9/11 terriorists or Boston Bombers' countries have been banned? None.

On top of all that Trump should pull all of his money and business ties out of all the countries that encourage Islamic fundamentalists. Is he going to do that? No. In fact he hasn't even put any of those countries in the banned list.

Even the logic of "saving American lives" is silly. Following that logic we should've banned the entire South Korean visitors or at least subject all of them to vigorous psychological testing since the Virginia Tech massacre was caused by one. Further more the USA should've blocked everyone from Italy, Russia, and China as these countries harbor the largest organized crime groups in the world. How many USA lives were killed by ethnically Italian gang members? Why are we still letting them in the country?

This policy is not only ineffective but utterly against everything the USA used to stand for. It's a mere dog whistling to the racists and a ploy to get people riled up while moving attention away from real matters.
1:11 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
Dicknose:
Great points.

>This policy is not only ineffective

Probably.

>but utterly against everything the USA used to stand for.

Also true. But we are allowed to put ourselves first as a country every now and then.

Now let me repeat myself:

>and it's a big motherfucking hypothetical IF

Big motherfucking hypothetical IF.

>It's a mere dog whistling

And its amazingly effective.

>and a ploy to get people riled up while moving attention away from real matters

Agreed. We should be fixing bridges, filling pot holes, funding schools, fixing windows smashed by Anarchists, etc.

I'm obviously stirring the pot and making people think around here.

So to myself I say job well done self.

Man I think I just pulled something patting myself on the back.
1:34 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
elbowroom:
@Dicknose

> and it's a big motherfucking hypothetical IF

It's not even worth the "hypothetical" tag. Since most Muslims are still very free to come into the country.

> Also true. But we are allowed to put ourselves first as a country every now and then.

Except this policy certainly doesn't do that.

> I'm obviously stirring the pot and making people think around here.

If you noticed I haven't said anything about Islam either for or against because this action by Trump doesn't address anything regarding whatever problems you have with the religion and threats it poses.

Basically you and others are doing exactly what Trump want you to do, which is shifting the focus onto a group of people who are not "USA" enough.
1:55 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
Dicknose:
@elbowroom

Although you are projecting. I clearly stated I am stirring the pot. Mostly to fuck around and get people to think. To draw out the true beliefs. These are fun times. We have open speech and open debate.... for now anyway.

I like the cut of your jib. (which is you look up jib it originated in the shape of a vessels jib sail noting its nationality) so yeah pun intended.

You do a great job of making an argument. With you I enjoy the debate.

And let me be clear as crystal one last time. I am debating for debates sake. I do not believe everything I say, rather I like to get people to think about shit.

I think you get it. At least I hope so. So don't lump me in with "what Trump wants me to do" horseshit. I can't stand the guy. Understand?
2:30 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
Dicknose:
Now if I may...

Islam like most religion is cancer.

The problem I have with Islam and most religions is they are cancer.

And you are right. Trump does not too much to cure that cancer.
2:54 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
anonymous:
Problem is that Islam is the most intolerant religion on earth. They literally say to kill non-believers in their books. And they also say you cannot leave the religion and you will be killed as well.

It's an extremely violent religion. That's why coexistence is impossible.
4:50 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
Stroke! Stroke!:
The NYT article is amusing:

"Trump’s Ban Strikes at the Heart of Silicon Valley’s Values"

Those values, of course, are making money.

The Left is freaking out about this the way the Right freaks out about gun restrictions. The difference is that the Left has the Press as part of their choir.

Most of the people in the US can't even show where these countries are on a map, much less explain why the people from there should be allowed into the US...including the Left.

If we're lucky, everyone on the Left will have a stroke and die before Spring.
6:02 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
Dicknose:
>Problem is that Islam is the most intolerant religion on earth

I don'y dig any religion and their fanatics. Scientology is pretty shitty too along those same lines of Islam..

But maybe Scientology is more of a cult than religion. I'm not sure.

Then again what is religion but a cult with better window dressing and funny outfits?

That brings me to tribalism. Really what people think they need is to feel like they are part of something, a group. Be it a religion, cult, sports team, technology company, etc. It all really goes back to the tribe.

Allahu snackbar! Death to all Snickers infidels! Twix all the way!
6:04 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
Dicknose:
>If we're lucky, everyone on the Left will have a stroke and die before Spring.

Lighten up Francis. Don't wish death on people.

...Unless they like Snickers! Allahu snackbar!
6:07 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
Not Anonymous:
TBF, you just did it again. You made statement followed by an insult and imagined it to be an argument.

You still have yet to say why this is unconstitutional – or even a bad idea. I get that you find it unpalatable. US citizens should not be affected by this ban. If they are, it’s not unconstitutional, but it may be against various statutes. Let’s say we agree on this. Whether the ban can apply to green card holder is questionable. Green cards are conditional, though; they require the holder make the US their home. A fault in our system is not adequately define or measure what making the US one’s home really entails. I think this is a plum opportunity to revisit that. Denizens should be required to show a certain level of understanding in English and US civics, culture and history. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. And, no less unreasonable, is revoking a green card if a holder cannot display mastery in those domains.

This would be entirely constitutional as our immigration and naturalization process should serve the interests of those who are already citizens and denizens. Right now, it does not.

No one has a right to come to the United States for any reason. It’s a privilege we grant. The US was never about letting anyone and everyone come in, no questions asked – until 1965. This cohort of immigrants is entirely unlike those that came before them, though you will find many good people among them. And they remain different, which is the real problem. The process of turning immigrants into Americans has ground to a halt. Here in LA we have many Armenians, Mexicans, Persians, etc… but very few Americans, even in the second and third generations. They do not see themselves as Americans. It’s not aspirational or desirable to them.

Trump should focus on patching our frayed national identity and restore the social cohesion necessary for a functional democracy. And until that has been done, slow legal immigration to a trickle and limit it to workers in highly-skilled sectors in high demand. No more chain immigration, no more illegal immigration, no more refugees.
6:55 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
anonymous:
[Muslim Leader in US: “Islam is not here to Integrate. Islam is here to Dominate”](http://freedomoutpost.com/muslim-leader-in-us-islam-is-not-here-to-integrate-islam-is-here-to-dominate/)
11:54 am — Monday, 30 January 2017
anonymous:
WTF is a "leftist fascist" you fucking racist xenophobes.

Stop shitposting and go back to sucking Bannon's white power out of his tiny shriveled dick you fucking cucks. LOL!
2:46 pm — Monday, 30 January 2017
Stroke! Stroke!:
The main "fascist" government was Italy, and they started out as leftists.

And given the left today, who doesn't doubt that, if unchecked, the Left turn into another more modern version of the Committee for Public Safety? These guys are fucking rabid bloodthirsty bastards who are as intolerant of other belief systems as the worst of ISIS.

They don't "believe" in guns, but they sure would use them on the Right if given the chance. Just look at the poober.
3:02 pm — Monday, 30 January 2017
anonymous:
WTF is a "racist xenophobe" you fucking leftist fascist.
5:43 pm — Monday, 30 January 2017
Dicknose:
Jesus Christ what is with all the name calling?

Make an argument. Don't be the lowest common denominator.

The left has lost its way lately. They want to stifle speech, get triggered and have their safe space.

Stand up. Listen to different opinions. Be respectful.

And if all else fails, grab em by the pussy.
6:52 pm — Monday, 30 January 2017
Stroke! Stroke!:
If they're men and on the Left, grab them by their pussy too.
9:21 pm — Monday, 30 January 2017
To Be Fair:
@Dicknose:

>TBF, you just did it again. You made statement followed by an insult and imagined it to be an argument.

Are you really this stupid? The insult is separate from the argument.

Two different things. therefore, not an *ad hominem* argument.
12:31 am — Tuesday, 31 January 2017
Repent & Believe :
Once people realize there is absolute truth, then you can figure out what is right and wrong. Once you can figure out what is right and wrong, you can make laws. Once you make laws, you can penalize when laws are broken.

This is how a just society works and what made America great in the first place.

Now truth is fluid and we can't decide who is really a man or woman. One of the most basic distinctions on the planet, and we can't even get that right. Then people want to chime in on a immigration ban? Are you serious?
2:43 am — Tuesday, 31 January 2017
Dicknose:
@To Be Fair:
>@Dicknose:

>>TBF, you just did it again. You made statement followed by an insult and imagined it to be an argument.

>Are you really this stupid? The insult is separate from the argument.

>Two different things. therefore, not an ad hominem argument.

Try replying to the person who said what you are quoting, who was @Not Anonymous

You must have had my name ready to copy and paste, I bet you are the one who posts as me.

I must really be getting under your skin and it's fucking fantastic.

I am really enjoying this. You just made my day.
3:36 am — Tuesday, 31 January 2017
To Be Fair:
>You must have had my name ready to copy and paste, I bet you are the one who posts as me.

Nope.

>I must really be getting under your skin and it's fucking fantastic.

Nope.
6:08 am — Tuesday, 31 January 2017
To Be Fair:
>You must have had my name ready to copy and paste, I bet you are the one who posts as me.

Nope.

>I must really be getting under your skin and it's fucking fantastic.

Nope.
6:08 am — Tuesday, 31 January 2017
ohm:
@Repent & Believe:

"Once people realize there is absolute truth, then you can figure out what is right and wrong. Once you can figure out what is right and wrong, you can make laws. Once you make laws, you can penalize when laws are broken.

This is how a just society works and what made America great in the first place.

Now truth is fluid and we can't decide who is really a man or woman. One of the most basic distinctions on the planet, and we can't even get that right. Then people want to chime in on a immigration ban? Are you serious?"

Right on.
6:11 am — Tuesday, 31 January 2017
Dicknose:
@Repent & Believe

I like you.

Well said.

We'll never agree on everything and don't have to.

But you make smart, cogent and decent points.

Wish I could say the same about myself.
7:32 am — Tuesday, 31 January 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!