Europe Laments, "Trump is Right"

[wrathbone]

How were

True, you own him nothing. If it's offensive then STOP LISTENING. You do not have the right to silence your opposition. THAT IS WHAT FACISTS DO.

How do we get to silence him ? He is an american citizen. We are just saying that we dont want that kind of trash in our country.

And yet you will let in murderous rapists. I guess that's your problem though. Hope your wife or daughter doesn't get it from them.

Rape and murder are far more prevalent in the US. Should we ban all Americans from Britain ?
The sensible answer is no. It would be ridiculous to condemn hundreds of millions of people for the actions of a few.
I suspect that might be a bit over your head though.

Ya know, I now truely understand why it is that so many in These United States detest the British. You are so condisending it accually hurts my eyes to read your posts anymore.

Your rampant idiocy makes it difficult to remain polite. I am sorry but reasoning with idiots is generally wasted time. I hope this helps you.

Tommy.....HaHAHAHHHHHHAAAAaaaa! Seems like you have more issues with americans than muslim terrorists....just saying. You come off rather arrogant and superior. If everything detests you so much, why are you here on a US message board? Seems like you've become the bully on the block....eh?

 

[wrathbone]

So now I cannot write? You're funny....Ha! You're a very critical and over-corrective nobody. Grow up and spare me the "smartest person in the room" routine because you feel some seniority or have nothing of substance to share beyond personal assumptions and broad-stroke speculation. How old are you platinum,... member?

Thanks for the interest in my member, fanboi, but I don't really roll that way. I do appreciate your curiosity, however.

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that you have some sort of chip on your shoulder and so have singled me out due to your insecurity, but do feel free to fuck off in the future, now, k?

@Dogmaphobicanal-retentive
Your lame projective one-liners define your petulant behavior.....and a Big League Fuck you, my dear....

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Fuck you, ..

Even if you attempted such, I doubt if I would feel much.

More projective insults....Hmmm I don't loathe the British, so again, your assumptions and presumptions are completely wrong. So, you hang out on a forum that sponsors US political banter and think you're some sort of expert on US politics and Global affairs? Again, that would be a pseudo-superior-intellectual hypocrite. You have already become predictable.....move on!

You should ask one of the big kids to show you how to use the quote feature.

 

[oldsoul]

More projective insults....Hmmm I don't loathe the British, so again, your assumptions and presumptions are completely wrong. So, you hang out on a forum that sponsors US political banter and think you're some sort of expert on US politics and Global affairs? Again, that would be a pseudo-superior-intellectual hypocrite. You have already become predictable.....move on!

If you are refering to me, not sure as you fail to establish this but I will assume, No insults, and I was not saying ALL of us loathe the British. Learn some reading comprehension skills.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Learn some reading comprehension skills.

He's one of those types who reads a couple of things he doesn't comprehend and so blames the person who wrote it for doing something to him they have not done. It's the classic case of having that blue-collar type chip on his shoulder and resenting anybody who isn't. I can just imagine him posing in front of the mirror saying "you lookin at me? You lookin at ME??!!"

I don't know about you, but I'm getting to the stage when I bruise easily, and my calves are now covered in bruises due to all the leg humping he's giving me.

 

[theHawk]

"Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you."

Fallacy of false equivalency is well represented above.

The great majority of Muslims don't do violence.

Religion cannot be a basis in America for banning people. If it were, we would have gotten rid of the Presbyterians long time ago.

It's not banning them for their religion, it's banning them for their beliefs that are contrary to the principles of freedom. They are the most intolerant and bigoted people on the planet. We have every right to exercise whatever immigration policy we want. There is nothing in the constitution that says we must have open borders to everyone.
Islam is worse than Nazism, there is no reason we should tolerate either.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Islam is worse than Nazism, there is no reason we should tolerate either.

The two ideologies have cross bread to a great degree, as well. Matthias Kuntzel has written extensively about the connections.

What I find interesting is that when I was a kid there were extremely few people holding Nazi-like beliefs and those who did were marginalized and extremist right wingers. Today, the vast majority are left wingers and it is becoming increasingly main stream.

It is like watching an infection spread. As Islam invades Europe , the useful idiots catch the disease and help pave the way for the conquest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you."

Fallacy of false equivalency is well represented above.

The great majority of Muslims don't do violence.

Religion cannot be a basis in America for banning people. If it were, we would have gotten rid of the Presbyterians long time ago.

It's not banning them for their religion, it's banning them for their beliefs that are contrary to the principles of freedom. They are the most intolerant and bigoted people on the planet. We have every right to exercise whatever immigration policy we want. There is nothing in the constitution that says we muban travel from Islamic nationsst have open borders to everyone.
Islam is worse than Nazism, there is no reason we should tolerate either.

All of that is your opinion. Your type of langauge would fit right into Islamofascism in spirit.

What we can do is ban people from certain nations until we are satisfied certain individuals are not a threat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Alt media right lie =+ Today, the vast majority are left wingers and it is becoming increasingly main stream.

 

[oldsoul]

"Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you."

Fallacy of false equivalency is well represented above.

The great majority of Muslims don't do violence.

Religion cannot be a basis in America for banning people. If it were, we would have gotten rid of the Presbyterians long time ago.

It's not banning them for their religion, it's banning them for their beliefs that are contrary to the principles of freedom. They are the most intolerant and bigoted people on the planet. We have every right to exercise whatever immigration policy we want. There is nothing in the constitution that says we muban travel from Islamic nationsst have open borders to everyone.
Islam is worse than Nazism, there is no reason we should tolerate either.

All of that is your opinion. Your type of langauge would fit right into Islamofascism in spirit.

What we can do is ban people from certain nations until we are satisfied certain individuals are not a threat.

And that is exactly what is being proposed here. Ther is a group of people in certain contries that are a threat to us. We have every right, and indeed the obligation, to ban everyone from those countries until we can discern who is a threat and who is not. The fact that they happened to be , primarily, Islamic has no bearing on the matter at all.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

All of that is your opinion. Your type of langauge would fit right into Islamofascism in spirit.

What we can do is ban people from certain nations until we are satisfied certain individuals are not a threat.

If this were 1941, and somebody wished to ban National Socialists from entering the country, would you make a similar claim that they were the same as the Nazis in spirit?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fallacy of false equivalency, dog. But you would because you wish to ban religion; therefore, you would ban philosophy.

Simply ban people from nations where such people are likely to be.

 

[oldsoul]

Fallacy of false equivalency, dog. But you would because you wish to ban religion; therefore, you would ban philosophy.

Simply ban people from nations where such people are likely to be.

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency." Pulled from wikipedia.org.
Pease explain how what Dogmaphobe said fits this definition. Or at least provide an accepted definition that explains your comment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your definition will do. You guys don't get to reinterpret definitions. He offered an equivalency, and I exposed it.

 

[theHawk]

"Banning a Person because of an opinion is totally different from banning a group of people who have a PROVEN record of violence, and a stated agenda of desroying you."

Fallacy of false equivalency is well represented above.

The great majority of Muslims don't do violence.

Religion cannot be a basis in America for banning people. If it were, we would have gotten rid of the Presbyterians long time ago.

It's not banning them for their religion, it's banning them for their beliefs that are contrary to the principles of freedom. They are the most intolerant and bigoted people on the planet. We have every right to exercise whatever immigration policy we want. There is nothing in the constitution that says we muban travel from Islamic nationsst have open borders to everyone.
Islam is worse than Nazism, there is no reason we should tolerate either.

All of that is your opinion. Your type of langauge would fit right into Islamofascism in spirit.

What we can do is ban people from certain nations until we are satisfied certain individuals are not a threat.

What language? That's like saying its discrimination to ban the KKK from the NAACP.

You can't prove that it's anywhere in the constitution that we must take on these low life Muslims that hate everyone.

Banning people from certain countries would be a start, but it would be better to just ban Muslims from any country. I'd rather we let Christians from Iraq in, than Muslims from Great Britain. But, we'd still have the problem of vetting such people because they will just start lying to get in. We should just shut down virtually all immigration from overseas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is absurd: That's like saying its discrimination to ban the KKK from the NAACP.

You cannot prove that we can't: You can't prove that it's anywhere in the constitution that we must take on these low life Muslims that hate everyone.

You are almost there, little buddy: Banning people from certain countries would be a start, but it would be better to just ban Muslims from any country. I'd rather we let Christians from Iraq in, than Muslims from Great Britain. But, we'd still have the problem of vetting such people because they will just start lying to get in. We should just shut down virtually all immigration from overseas.

 

[oldsoul]

We should just shut down virtually all immigration from overseas.

While I agree with SOME of your points, on this one, I have to vehemently disagree. There are a lot of areas I would have no problem with letting people come here from. That is, of course, if they come here within the confines of our laws, and can be properly vetted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know you far righties want to win so badly with Trump or Cruz.

Not going to happen.

 

[HenryBHough]

I know you far righties want to win so badly with Trump or Cruz.

Not going to happen.

Please, Jammie-Boi, we understand you're going to find it very difficult ty say "President Trump" but with a little help from some charitable, responsible adult, you can get your lips around that, too.

 

[oldsoul]

Your definition will do. You guys don't get to reinterpret definitions. He offered an equivalency, and I exposed it.

Explain, that is what I asked. Can you explain yourself? I do not see the false equivalency. He/she asked you a question, and you dodged it by claiming a "Fallacy of false equivalency" (your words). It would seem as though you are unprepared to support your assertion.