FireChan Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 8:06 PM, GG said: By that nature, the driver of McVeigh's truck, or any get away drivers aren't guilty either. Let's free Khaled Mohammed too, since he didn't fly the planes. Yes, because freeing them and not imposing blanket-wide bans against people we don't know a single thing about is the same. This is embarrassing.
GG Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 8:09 PM, FireChan said: Yes, because freeing them and not imposing blanket-wide bans against people we don't know a single thing about is the same. This is embarrassing. You're the one applying the absolutist standard, so I'm following your logic.
FireChan Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) On 3/22/2016 at 8:22 PM, GG said: You're the one applying the absolutist standard, so I'm following your logic. Don't cite any kind of logic in that abortion of a post. I didn't call them innocents, not guilty, or to "release them." I said they didn't kill anyone directly and that's true. I said we don't know anything about them. Both things are barriers to a blanket ban, mostly because we have no info on them and they haven't committed any direct acts of terror out in the open. If your idea of "following logic" makes that an argument in support of freeing Khaled, it may be time to go back your safe space. Edited March 22, 2016 by FireChan
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 I'm not sure I understand the argument the two of you are having. Which of you is in favor of a ban on Muslim immigration, or believes it to be workable or reasonable?
GG Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 9:32 PM, TakeYouToTasker said: I'm not sure I understand the argument the two of you are having. Which of you is in favor of a ban on Muslim immigration, or believes it to be workable or reasonable? It appears yet again that Fire twisted his argument.
FireChan Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) On 3/22/2016 at 9:53 PM, GG said: It appears yet again that Fire twisted his argument. Yet again? Maybe you're confused. Originally, you said: On 3/22/2016 at 4:54 PM, GG said: You'd have a bigger point if Trump proposed blocking people from Mid East or other volatile regions in, as opposed to denying entry to all Muslims. On 3/22/2016 at 5:05 PM, GG said: That's not the point, because in reality it's not feasible. But it shows a separation between a real candidate and a carney clown. A real candidate would stake out a claim by proposing a block on migrants from the war-torn regions, a carney clown candidate would propose a block on an entire global religion. On 3/22/2016 at 6:35 PM, FireChan said: Are all Islamic extremists necessarily from war-torn regions? Or are they all Muslim? On 3/22/2016 at 7:47 PM, GG said: Not all. There are some sympathizers/collaborators who aren't Muslim. How did Farook obtain his guns? That's why Trump's blanket statement is stupid. Some followers of that particular religion are absolutely the ones causing the problems. Then it got fuzzy. You said that not all Islamic extremists are followers of Islam. I said that they aren't all from war-torn regions. Your non-"carney" response was just as stupid of a blanket statement, which is why I went after it. You said something as stupid as the Donald while commenting on how stupid he is. Be less stupid. Edited March 22, 2016 by FireChan
GG Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 10:14 PM, FireChan said: Yet again? Maybe you're confused. Originally, you said: Then it got fuzzy. You said that not all Islamic extremists are followers of Islam. I said that they aren't all from war-torn regions. Your non-"carney" response was just as stupid of a blanket statement, which is why I went after it. You said something as stupid as the Donald while commenting on how stupid he is. Be less stupid. Kind of ironic that a Trump supporter suddenly wants to go into an in-depth analysis of candidates' positions, wouldn't you think? But I'll play along. Please explain why saying that US shouldn't accept Syrian refugees is the same as saying that US shouldn't accept Muslims.
FireChan Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 10:48 PM, GG said: Kind of ironic that a Trump supporter suddenly wants to go into an in-depth analysis of candidates' positions, wouldn't you think? But I'll play along. Please explain why saying that US shouldn't accept Syrian refugees is the same as saying that US shouldn't accept Muslims. A Trump supporter? See this is your problem. Saying dumb things. Because not all terrorists are Syrian refugees/masquerading as refugees, just like not all terrorists and their associates are Muslims. Both are efforts in futility.
GG Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 11:16 PM, FireChan said: A Trump supporter? See this is your problem. Saying dumb things. Because not all terrorists are Syrian refugees/masquerading as refugees, just like not all terrorists and their associates are Muslims. Both are efforts in futility. The lady doth protest. You certainly feel compelled to jump to his defense at great frequency.
FireChan Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 11:29 PM, GG said: The lady doth protest. You certainly feel compelled to jump to his defense at great frequency. That doesn't make me a supporter. Are we using your special brand of logic again?
GG Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 11:36 PM, FireChan said: That doesn't make me a supporter. Are we using your special brand of logic again? A rose by any other name? Just wondering why you had the urge to equate The Donald's ban of all Muslims to a ban on people from specific regions during a major conflict? Was it right to ban all travel from Liberia during the Ebola scare?
FireChan Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 11:46 PM, GG said: A rose by any other name? Just wondering why you had the urge to equate The Donald's ban of all Muslims to a ban on people from specific regions during a major conflict? Was it right to ban all travel from Liberia during the Ebola scare? Because it's just as stupid if the end goal is to prevent Islamic terrorist attacks in the US. If they have any sophistication, they'll get through. Banning "Syrians" won't change that.
Dante Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) On 3/22/2016 at 10:48 PM, GG said: Kind of ironic that a Trump supporter suddenly wants to go into an in-depth analysis of candidates' positions, wouldn't you think? But I'll play along. Please explain why saying that US shouldn't accept Syrian refugees is the same as saying that US shouldn't accept Muslims. Although this kind of lameness is getting tired, it really does shed light on why the anti Trump unhinged is so detached. Any analysis of any candidates positions is a waste of time. . Your listening to a lawyer/used car salesman hybrid like what they actually say is the truth! After destroying the dems in two mid term elections the same guys you love did absolutely nothing with the momentum except submit and roll over to that schmuck in the White House. So when I read how condescending and superior these posts are when someone dares type anything except ridicule or hatred for Trump I just have to wonder who's really out to lunch. Edited March 22, 2016 by Dante
GG Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 11:52 PM, FireChan said: Because it's just as stupid if the end goal is to prevent Islamic terrorist attacks in the US. If they have any sophistication, they'll get through. Banning "Syrians" won't change that. No, the goal is to campaign for votes without sounding like a complete buffoon, which is what my original post was about. It was not about the viability or practicality of each proposal. Neither policy will be particularly effective, but one sounds a hell of a lot stupider but more appealing to the morons. Glad you can pick up on that.
FireChan Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) On 3/22/2016 at 11:58 PM, GG said: No, the goal is to campaign for votes without sounding like a complete buffoon, which is what my original post was about. It was not about the viability or practicality of each proposal. Neither policy will be particularly effective, but one sounds a hell of a lot stupider but more appealing to the morons. Glad you can pick up on that. Is the goal to campaign while not sounding like a buffoon according to GG or just getting the most votes? If they are both stupid, but one sounds stupider, there isn't a true difference in substance, just presentation. There's no effective difference. So who cares? Edited March 23, 2016 by FireChan
GG Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 On 3/22/2016 at 11:57 PM, Dante said: Although this kind of lameness is getting tired, it really does shed light on why the anti Trump unhinged is so detached. Any analysis of any candidates positions is a waste of time. . Your listening to a lawyer/used car salesman hybrid like what they actually say is the truth! After destroying the dems in two mid term elections the same guys you love did absolutely nothing with the momentum except submit and roll over to that schmuck in the White House. So when I read how condescending and superior these posts are when someone dares type anything except ridicule or hatred for Trump I just have to wonder who's really out to lunch. Since Trump doesn't post here, I'll stick to bashing his supporters. Of course I'm condescending in my tone, because trying to rationally argue why the man is a complete idiot and will be a nightmare president hasn't worked on you people. So it's much more productive to call you morons, because you pay attention to the insults when you don't pay attention to rational questions about his qualifications and background. In effect, I'm trumping you. On 3/23/2016 at 12:07 AM, FireChan said: Is the goal to campaign while not sounding like a buffoon according to GG or just getting the most votes? If they are both stupid, but one sounds stupider, there isn't a true difference in substance, just presentation. There's no effective difference. So who cares? I don't own the exclusivity on calling trump a buffoon. He's earned it globally. But to answer your question, buffoons don't get the most votes. They play well to the true believers and that's why trump's net negatives have been rising. Sorry if I can't take a candidate seriously who can't pull above 35% support, even as people have been dropping out.
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 On 3/23/2016 at 12:07 AM, FireChan said: Is the goal to campaign while not sounding like a buffoon according to GG or just getting the most votes? If they are both stupid, but one sounds stupider, there isn't a true difference in substance, just presentation. There's no effective difference. So who cares? Hey, no one thinks he sounds like a buffoon. We think he IS a buffoon. Because he's a buffoon.
FireChan Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 On 3/23/2016 at 12:17 AM, GG said: Since Trump doesn't post here, I'll stick to bashing his supporters. Of course I'm condescending in my tone, because trying to rationally argue why the man is a complete idiot and will be a nightmare president hasn't worked on you people. So it's much more productive to call you morons, because you pay attention to the insults when you don't pay attention to rational questions about his qualifications and background. In effect, I'm trumping you. I don't own the exclusivity on calling trump a buffoon. He's earned it globally. But to answer your question, buffoons don't get the most votes. They play well to the true believers and that's why trump's net negatives have been rising. Sorry if I can't take a candidate seriously who can't pull above 35% support, even as people have been dropping out. Well, he's crushing the primaries. We shall see how it all plays out.
Ozymandius Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 Guys, guys, guys. It ain't complicated. End ALL immigration. Adopt a one child only policy (like China used to do) for non-whites. Implement some policies that incentivize whites to have babies. America will soon be great again.
meazza Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 On 3/23/2016 at 12:51 AM, Ozymandius said: Guys, guys, guys. It ain't complicated. End ALL immigration. Adopt a one child only policy (like China used to do) for non-whites. Implement some policies that incentivize whites to have babies. America will soon be great again. Only if you promise to get castrated yourself.
Recommended Posts