What is a "Christian nation" and how is it different from a nation of Christians? How did you come to the conclusion we're a "Christian nation?" And when something like 80% of Evangelical Christians vote for Republican candidates and against socialist policies, are you telling me they're doing Christianity wrong?
But literally 57% of people support the travel ban EO with only 33% opposed. You pulled your numbers out of your ass, and are doing exactly what you admonished me for doing (that I didn't even do), and are using your personal anecdotes instead of data. People are not livid. Not many people are freaking out because "oh my god what will we do without more Somali ghettos in the US?!?!"
Christianity isn't socialist though. As Thomas Aquinas said on duties and obligations "It is necessary to welcome the foreigner, possibly to the detriment of oneself, but not to the detriment of his own: the injunction of charity is personal, not collective. The stranger yes, but the first mine served." Forcing your neighbor to give to the stranger (taxation and redistribution) would be a collective charity, not a personal one.
And as St. Augustine said "would you fucking internet atheists stop pretending like you understand Christianity so you can give out shitty arguments that your heathen ass would never follow but act like they're supposed to be in any way persuasive to a Christian? Eat shit, faggot." Not sure if that's an exact translation. My latin is a little rusty.
Trump could sue me if we had a non-disclosure agreement. But I don't have any such arrangement, so if I had his tax returns there's nothing criminal about me releasing them, and only possible civil penalties if the release of said returns damaged Trump in some way.
There are also laws about hate speech
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Maybe in your shit euro country, but there's no such thing as "hate speech laws" in the US. I can spew whatever hate and bile I want and the government can't do a thing to me. My employer might not like it so much, and I might lose friends, but I can straight up advocate for gassing ethnic minorities if I want and there's nothing the government can do.
It is illegal to make threats
Read up on "true threats" in the US. You have to be really, really credible in order for death threats to be illegal in the US. Anonymous internet threats over video games never meet that criteria.
We take free speech very seriously in the US, to an extent Europeans do not understand.
Used to be the pro-labor left was against immigration. Not just illegal but all immigration because it drove down wages. And both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois wrote essays on why white businesses should hire American blacks who knew their language and culture instead of fresh off the boat Poles and Italians. But the Democrats abandoned the working class long ago when they realized if they just let in as many 3rd worlders as possible they'd vote for socialism. It's just surprising it took a Republican this long to figure it out.
The thing I liked about Trump's promises is they were almost entirely things that either the President already has the power to do, or that require very little cooperation from Congress. Deport illegals? Just tell ICE to do their jobs. Wall? Already authorized (getting Mexico to pay for it requires getting Congress to tax remittances, but there's no legitimate reason for them to balk at that). Ban muslims? President can ban any foreigners for any reason. Bomb the shit out of ISIS? Commander-in-Chief. Renegotiate trade deals? Treaties are the executive branch's job. So Trump was running for the right job.
Contrast with Bernie who seemed to be running for King of the Legislature. Stuff like "a tax on Wall Street trades to give people free college." That requires congress. Bernie, you're already in the Senate. You could draft that bill today. All Bernie was going to win was a bigger soap box from which he could scream at capitalism.
Our politicians scream for 21-st Century SKILLS, STEM and Skills, HI-Tech workers, yet these are the SAME PEOPLE WHO VOTE TO APPROVED ANEMIC EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS that do no include ANY 21st Century STEM, or HI-TECH. If something is a priority, MAKE IT A PRIORITY. Don't just talk about it and say, "Oh golly gee, wish we had more kids with 21st Century skills."
But we still need simple jobs for simple people. Half of people have an IQ below 100. School doesn't make you any smarter (go in with 90 IQ, come out with 90 IQ). We're not going to be turning these people into electrical engineers no matter how much money you throw at STEM education.
So if you're going to put restrictions on H1Bs, which I think is sensible, you're going to need to have an enforcement system in place that is effective enough to catch and make an example of enough of the cheaters to scare the rest straight, or they'll just simply find new and inventive ways to get past the rules.
It's much harder for tech stuff the people in government don't understand. "Requires 8 years experience in Microsoft SQL Server 2014." Oh look, we can't find anybody who meets that in the US who isn't lying on their resume.
And the notion that Trump is doing this simply for political reasons?
Well, he is doing it for political reasons, as he's now a politician. His logic is very simple: listen to what the American people want, tell them you'll do that, then do it. They will then love you, and put you on Mt. Rushmore, which is Trump's endgame. He's got money, women, fame...what he didn't have was immortality. He'll have that now.
And if you happen to think the things Trump is doing are not popular, you need to stop watching CNN and talk to some actual people. Every time he'd do something crazy the TV would say "surely this is the end of Trump!" And then his poll numbers would go up. Even things like the Muslim ban. Shockingly enough, people don't like Islam that much and don't see any value added to America by allowing Muslim immigration. All downside, no upside. Depending on how you ask the question, you'll get 40% ("ban all muslims") to 60% ("ban immigration from specific countries with a history of muslim terror with reasonable exceptions") approval. When you're saying something 60% of people agree with, your numbers aren't going down, even though 0% of people on TV agree with it.
If another worker is willing to do it cheaper, it's worth less. Jobs don't have inherent wage value.
The problem is it's not just about doing the job for less, it's about the coercive pressure the employer has over the indentured servant. Someone who will be deported back to their shithole country if they get uppity about their pay and working conditions does not have the same bargaining power as a US citizen.
You need a basic history course. When muslims are few in number they say "we are a religion of peace." When they are more they say "we need to live under our own laws." When they are many they say "convert or die." It happens over and over again. Last one was Lebanon, and France is next. In less than a generation...about 2030 or so there's going to be civil war in France. You are a shortsighted idiot.
Who cares if they're really for religion or just using religion as an excuse to conquer? The muslims are still doing it and will never stop. So stop letting them into the west or we're going to be living in the 7th century again.
And the Christians stopped having holy wars a long, long time ago. Muslims are still going strong at it. Why do you want to let in people who are still acting like it's the 7th century and will never stop acting like it's the 7th century?
You're just doing the "ugh, stop defending yourself from ISIS, don't you know that's exactly what ISIS wants you to do?!?" insanity. Who cares what ISIS wants?
No, you just have to fight and defeat them because they're going to do evil no matter what. It's baked into the fundamental premises of Islam, which is why muslims in large groups always wind up at war with everyone else around them including the other muslims.
Basically you're characterizing the travel ban as something it's not (an anti-muslim move) and then criticizing it for...not actually being anti-muslim because it excludes SA, Pakistan, etc. You're looking for something to complain about so you've made a straw man. Unless you're a Somalian, why do you care about any of this shit? I think you're just autisticly screeching at Trump because Trump. No one cares about your histrionics.
Look, if it were up to me I'd amend the constitution to ban Islam, burn ever Koran, turn every mosque into a gay night club and tell muslims to convert or GTFO. It is a thoroughly and irredeemably evil belief system that will always result in war and murder. And I'd replace that stupid "poor and tired" poem on the Statue of Liberty with a sign that says "fuck off, we're full." But that's not anything Trump is going to do.
I agree with you, Saudi Arabia is complete shit exporting Wahhabi terror around the world. I'd love to ban travel from SA. But as far as I can tell Trump's EO is just about nations that can't provide any useful information about travelers. We both agree it's not about stopping Islam, but what's your problem with the travel bans?
So, someone releasing your phone, number, address and tax records is free speech protected by the constitution is it?
Yes? Shitty thing to do, but in the US we go to extremes to protect free speech. I'd say it's one of the few things actually still working as intended after all the judicial fuckery we've had going on over the last 50 years.
Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere?
Essentially, yes. In the United States a death threat is only illegal if it's a "true threat." The definition of "true threat" varies by jurisdiction, but essentially there must be reason to believe the person making the threat has the ability and intent to carry it out. Otherwise it's really awful speech but protected under the first amendment. There is no reason to believe an anonymous threat over the internet about fucking video games is a true threat. If.00001% of the daily death threats that are spewed by 12 year olds on Xbox Live were carried out the streets would be ankle deep in blood.
Is it a shitty thing to do to send someone death threats over the internet? Absolutely. But only a complete moron or a politically motivated shitbag looking for sympathy points from complete morons would take them seriously. Wu doesn't seem like a complete moron, so I'm guessing it's the latter.
What about the leftists beating the crap out of trash bins at the inauguration? I assume the trash bin provoked them? Was it Adolf Binler, the most evil and racist trash bin of all time, so it had it coming?
The left comes to "protests" ready to riot. This is not like the civil rights movement where men marched in suits and ladies in dresses. The modern left passes out instructions for what kind of clothes to wear for rioting, they bring masks, etc. So to say they're protests that can turn violent because of opposition is completely false. Yes, and Tim McVeigh peacefully drove the fertilizer van up to the federal building until the peaceful van turned violent, and the 9/11 hijackers peacefully boarded the plane and peacefully subdued the flight staff with peaceful box cutters until the peaceful meeting of the peaceful plane and the World Trade Center suddenly turned violent. The left's "peaceful protests" is just a euphemism for "assembly time before the rioting."
Yes, while campaigning, candidate Trump made a lot of noise while saying very little.
It appears that way because the media only focused on some manufactured outrage. He could speak for two hours about plans for immigration or trade reform and it doesn't matter because the media is going to spend the entire news cycle screaming about whether or not he made fun of a disabled reporter. Trump's actual plans are clearly written on his website, that's what his voters read and voted for, and he is carrying out those plans at a rapid pace. At this rate he'll have his entire platform wrapped up in a few weeks. I wonder what he'll do for the rest of his presidency?
The stated reason for choosing those seven countries (the same ones Obama selected for increased scrutiny in 2011) is because they lack functioning governments that can provide meaningful information that can be used for security screening. It's hard to get someone's criminal record from the "government" of Somalia. Saudi Arabia has a functioning government with government records, so their citizens can be screened.
This all appears to be objectively true. If it were about "banning muslims" he would have included, as you say, nations like Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia, etc. I hate Islam and would much prefer an actual muslim ban, but this appears to be security and documentation related, not part of any effective anti-Islamification plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Signed,
George III cocksucker sure the fucking colonists cannot rule themselves.
What is a "Christian nation" and how is it different from a nation of Christians? How did you come to the conclusion we're a "Christian nation?" And when something like 80% of Evangelical Christians vote for Republican candidates and against socialist policies, are you telling me they're doing Christianity wrong?
But literally 57% of people support the travel ban EO with only 33% opposed. You pulled your numbers out of your ass, and are doing exactly what you admonished me for doing (that I didn't even do), and are using your personal anecdotes instead of data. People are not livid. Not many people are freaking out because "oh my god what will we do without more Somali ghettos in the US?!?!"
Christianity isn't socialist though. As Thomas Aquinas said on duties and obligations "It is necessary to welcome the foreigner, possibly to the detriment of oneself, but not to the detriment of his own: the injunction of charity is personal, not collective. The stranger yes, but the first mine served." Forcing your neighbor to give to the stranger (taxation and redistribution) would be a collective charity, not a personal one.
And as St. Augustine said "would you fucking internet atheists stop pretending like you understand Christianity so you can give out shitty arguments that your heathen ass would never follow but act like they're supposed to be in any way persuasive to a Christian? Eat shit, faggot." Not sure if that's an exact translation. My latin is a little rusty.
You're the one who thinks there are hate speech laws in the US. Could you link me one?
Sounds like socialism? Well duh. Religion has always been socialist.
Jesus was not a socialist. When you die, does God judge your soul, or your government's soul?
There are privacy laws
Trump could sue me if we had a non-disclosure agreement. But I don't have any such arrangement, so if I had his tax returns there's nothing criminal about me releasing them, and only possible civil penalties if the release of said returns damaged Trump in some way.
There are also laws about hate speech
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Maybe in your shit euro country, but there's no such thing as "hate speech laws" in the US. I can spew whatever hate and bile I want and the government can't do a thing to me. My employer might not like it so much, and I might lose friends, but I can straight up advocate for gassing ethnic minorities if I want and there's nothing the government can do.
It is illegal to make threats
Read up on "true threats" in the US. You have to be really, really credible in order for death threats to be illegal in the US. Anonymous internet threats over video games never meet that criteria.
We take free speech very seriously in the US, to an extent Europeans do not understand.
So to was controlling immigration numbers.
Used to be the pro-labor left was against immigration. Not just illegal but all immigration because it drove down wages. And both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois wrote essays on why white businesses should hire American blacks who knew their language and culture instead of fresh off the boat Poles and Italians. But the Democrats abandoned the working class long ago when they realized if they just let in as many 3rd worlders as possible they'd vote for socialism. It's just surprising it took a Republican this long to figure it out.
The thing I liked about Trump's promises is they were almost entirely things that either the President already has the power to do, or that require very little cooperation from Congress. Deport illegals? Just tell ICE to do their jobs. Wall? Already authorized (getting Mexico to pay for it requires getting Congress to tax remittances, but there's no legitimate reason for them to balk at that). Ban muslims? President can ban any foreigners for any reason. Bomb the shit out of ISIS? Commander-in-Chief. Renegotiate trade deals? Treaties are the executive branch's job. So Trump was running for the right job.
Contrast with Bernie who seemed to be running for King of the Legislature. Stuff like "a tax on Wall Street trades to give people free college." That requires congress. Bernie, you're already in the Senate. You could draft that bill today. All Bernie was going to win was a bigger soap box from which he could scream at capitalism.
Our politicians scream for 21-st Century SKILLS, STEM and Skills, HI-Tech workers, yet these are the SAME PEOPLE WHO VOTE TO APPROVED ANEMIC EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS that do no include ANY 21st Century STEM, or HI-TECH. If something is a priority, MAKE IT A PRIORITY. Don't just talk about it and say, "Oh golly gee, wish we had more kids with 21st Century skills."
But we still need simple jobs for simple people. Half of people have an IQ below 100. School doesn't make you any smarter (go in with 90 IQ, come out with 90 IQ). We're not going to be turning these people into electrical engineers no matter how much money you throw at STEM education.
So if you're going to put restrictions on H1Bs, which I think is sensible, you're going to need to have an enforcement system in place that is effective enough to catch and make an example of enough of the cheaters to scare the rest straight, or they'll just simply find new and inventive ways to get past the rules.
It's much harder for tech stuff the people in government don't understand. "Requires 8 years experience in Microsoft SQL Server 2014." Oh look, we can't find anybody who meets that in the US who isn't lying on their resume.
And the notion that Trump is doing this simply for political reasons?
Well, he is doing it for political reasons, as he's now a politician. His logic is very simple: listen to what the American people want, tell them you'll do that, then do it. They will then love you, and put you on Mt. Rushmore, which is Trump's endgame. He's got money, women, fame...what he didn't have was immortality. He'll have that now.
And if you happen to think the things Trump is doing are not popular, you need to stop watching CNN and talk to some actual people. Every time he'd do something crazy the TV would say "surely this is the end of Trump!" And then his poll numbers would go up. Even things like the Muslim ban. Shockingly enough, people don't like Islam that much and don't see any value added to America by allowing Muslim immigration. All downside, no upside. Depending on how you ask the question, you'll get 40% ("ban all muslims") to 60% ("ban immigration from specific countries with a history of muslim terror with reasonable exceptions") approval. When you're saying something 60% of people agree with, your numbers aren't going down, even though 0% of people on TV agree with it.
If another worker is willing to do it cheaper, it's worth less. Jobs don't have inherent wage value.
The problem is it's not just about doing the job for less, it's about the coercive pressure the employer has over the indentured servant. Someone who will be deported back to their shithole country if they get uppity about their pay and working conditions does not have the same bargaining power as a US citizen.
So please send me Trump's tax records.
I don't have them, but if I did it wouldn't be a crime to send them to you.
You need a basic history course. When muslims are few in number they say "we are a religion of peace." When they are more they say "we need to live under our own laws." When they are many they say "convert or die." It happens over and over again. Last one was Lebanon, and France is next. In less than a generation...about 2030 or so there's going to be civil war in France. You are a shortsighted idiot.
Who cares if they're really for religion or just using religion as an excuse to conquer? The muslims are still doing it and will never stop. So stop letting them into the west or we're going to be living in the 7th century again.
And the Christians stopped having holy wars a long, long time ago. Muslims are still going strong at it. Why do you want to let in people who are still acting like it's the 7th century and will never stop acting like it's the 7th century?
You're just doing the "ugh, stop defending yourself from ISIS, don't you know that's exactly what ISIS wants you to do?!?" insanity. Who cares what ISIS wants?
No, you just have to fight and defeat them because they're going to do evil no matter what. It's baked into the fundamental premises of Islam, which is why muslims in large groups always wind up at war with everyone else around them including the other muslims.
Basically you're characterizing the travel ban as something it's not (an anti-muslim move) and then criticizing it for...not actually being anti-muslim because it excludes SA, Pakistan, etc. You're looking for something to complain about so you've made a straw man. Unless you're a Somalian, why do you care about any of this shit? I think you're just autisticly screeching at Trump because Trump. No one cares about your histrionics.
Look, if it were up to me I'd amend the constitution to ban Islam, burn ever Koran, turn every mosque into a gay night club and tell muslims to convert or GTFO. It is a thoroughly and irredeemably evil belief system that will always result in war and murder. And I'd replace that stupid "poor and tired" poem on the Statue of Liberty with a sign that says "fuck off, we're full." But that's not anything Trump is going to do.
I agree with you, Saudi Arabia is complete shit exporting Wahhabi terror around the world. I'd love to ban travel from SA. But as far as I can tell Trump's EO is just about nations that can't provide any useful information about travelers. We both agree it's not about stopping Islam, but what's your problem with the travel bans?
Yes, you need to have been a citizen for at least 7 years before you're allowed to run for Congress.
So, someone releasing your phone, number, address and tax records is free speech protected by the constitution is it?
Yes? Shitty thing to do, but in the US we go to extremes to protect free speech. I'd say it's one of the few things actually still working as intended after all the judicial fuckery we've had going on over the last 50 years.
Oh, death threats aren't illegal if they're sent by stupid people? Is that case law somewhere?
Essentially, yes. In the United States a death threat is only illegal if it's a "true threat." The definition of "true threat" varies by jurisdiction, but essentially there must be reason to believe the person making the threat has the ability and intent to carry it out. Otherwise it's really awful speech but protected under the first amendment. There is no reason to believe an anonymous threat over the internet about fucking video games is a true threat. If .00001% of the daily death threats that are spewed by 12 year olds on Xbox Live were carried out the streets would be ankle deep in blood.
Is it a shitty thing to do to send someone death threats over the internet? Absolutely. But only a complete moron or a politically motivated shitbag looking for sympathy points from complete morons would take them seriously. Wu doesn't seem like a complete moron, so I'm guessing it's the latter.
What about the leftists beating the crap out of trash bins at the inauguration? I assume the trash bin provoked them? Was it Adolf Binler, the most evil and racist trash bin of all time, so it had it coming?
The left comes to "protests" ready to riot. This is not like the civil rights movement where men marched in suits and ladies in dresses. The modern left passes out instructions for what kind of clothes to wear for rioting, they bring masks, etc. So to say they're protests that can turn violent because of opposition is completely false. Yes, and Tim McVeigh peacefully drove the fertilizer van up to the federal building until the peaceful van turned violent, and the 9/11 hijackers peacefully boarded the plane and peacefully subdued the flight staff with peaceful box cutters until the peaceful meeting of the peaceful plane and the World Trade Center suddenly turned violent. The left's "peaceful protests" is just a euphemism for "assembly time before the rioting."
Yes, while campaigning, candidate Trump made a lot of noise while saying very little.
It appears that way because the media only focused on some manufactured outrage. He could speak for two hours about plans for immigration or trade reform and it doesn't matter because the media is going to spend the entire news cycle screaming about whether or not he made fun of a disabled reporter. Trump's actual plans are clearly written on his website, that's what his voters read and voted for, and he is carrying out those plans at a rapid pace. At this rate he'll have his entire platform wrapped up in a few weeks. I wonder what he'll do for the rest of his presidency?
The stated reason for choosing those seven countries (the same ones Obama selected for increased scrutiny in 2011) is because they lack functioning governments that can provide meaningful information that can be used for security screening. It's hard to get someone's criminal record from the "government" of Somalia. Saudi Arabia has a functioning government with government records, so their citizens can be screened.
This all appears to be objectively true. If it were about "banning muslims" he would have included, as you say, nations like Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia, etc. I hate Islam and would much prefer an actual muslim ban, but this appears to be security and documentation related, not part of any effective anti-Islamification plan.