You fooking Zionist bastards need to understand that this boy was victim of Irving Texas bullshit. The mayor was a supporter of Pamela Geller, and they both believe, if I read them correctly, that they hate all Muslims, peaceful or not. You Muslim haters are also haters of America, who has been subdued by Zionists to do their crappy will.
You're taking this comedy to new levels of hilarity. If being questioned in school, detention and having the parents called makes one being a 15 million dollar lawsuit victim, I should have a hundred million in the bank easily.
My post was merely about who was documented to have been celebrating in the USA when the twin towers collapsed. It may be that they were not celebrating. It may be that they were. And I offered that post in the context of Trump's remarks. Now do you think Trump will bring up this particular incident? Or any other candidate? But yet he will offer an observation of celebration that apparently was not documented, and for which apparently there is not even a hint of proof.
Sure there were celebrations, but thousands is likely exaggerated or at least not observed. However there is a big enough percentage endorsing those attacks, as certainly you could see the thousands of fans in the soccer stadium in Turkey disrupting the minute of silence. Trump does not care to rectify most of his remarks and he never apologizes which is a very successful strategy. We live in an era were breaking the law (otherwise Hillary would be in jail next to a bunch of bankers) is less important than voicing opinions that may be greatly exaggerated and he is going against that mainstream trend. All candidates and incumbents lie routinely, so there's really nothing outrageous (anymore) about it. I think he also posted a partially incorrect statistic of racial crime statistics. He said later he does not vet every tweet going out in his name. How can people not be forgiving if we routinely have to pass laws to see what's in it or have secret negotiations before the public can look at the details when all is said and decided? And let's not forget that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor ;)
It shouldn't come to a war between the US and Russia, but the NATO treaty is not a technicality. We also are not just doing Turkey a favor by letting them in NATO, there are strategic reasons for it.
Of course it shouldn't, but that's mostly up to the US=NATO. Turkey indeed is strategically useful as a buffer to the middle-east, but decades of appeasement have yield close to nothing and rather had a negative effect. The same appeasement that is shown towards Islam by the leftists. Didn't work with Hitler, won't work this time. If they want to join they have to become serious about western values and acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition of most of the EU member countries.
Turkey should shut the fuck up after being welcomed into the EU despite strong concerns which were justified as it now seems.
Turkey is not in EU, and won't be.
They are part of NATO however: if Putin attacks them they have a right to demand the US and all NATO countries to defend them.
It's a technicality. The EU has enacted several programs to aid Turkey, torn down economic barriers, added free Visa programs etc. and whatnot with the goal to make it a full member. Turkey has mostly not reciprocated like you mentioned. Yes, technically they have a right to demand help from NATO. I hope it doesn't come that far and if Europe would take a more aggressive stance towards Turkey it would erode NATO support as well which they don't deserve so far.
That means if a school tries to expel a student for putting up "Drop off Freshmen Girls Here" signs on their privately rented balcon
Right, but as soon as we see a female child swearing on youtube, let's get out our pitch forks and bitch about the feminazis. Freedom of speech for college boys, even if they have nothing to say, but a vulgar joke.
You seem to have a problem differentiating between people voicing their opinions (aka bitching about feminazis or freedom of speech) and people demanding a change in the laws of society because other people are exercising their right to free speech (feminazis, BLM activists constantly trying to enact fascist and discriminatory changes in common and campus law).
Thank you, Multikultis, for now I believe Nationalism is the only answer to the Islamic Threat and Neoliberalism. Otherwise I would be a rather left-of-center Leftist.
If Labour would reverse itself on Immigration, it would sweep the elections, since the Conservatives couldn't betray their Landlord and Neoliberal Capitalist base that demands migrants to offset the strong possibility of declining rents and rising wages as Europe's population would continue to softly decline without it.
Don't forget that what is considered 'Nationalist' these days is just normal parties that would have been part of the liberal burgeoisie back then. I do not subscribe to the notion that enhanced patriotism/taking care of your citizens necessarily comes with any lost liberties, you can keep habeas corpus, warrants etc. for CITIZENS. So this is a leftoid straw man, even from a libertarian point of view.
I always thought of UKIP as the Euroskeptic Party, and that it was ganged up upon by Labour and the Tories, who divide the Euroskeptics between them and keep them on the backbenches. And that the BNP/EDL stuff was just the usual smear nonsense.
The Graun lately has been keeping articles in past day or so about Paris and Islam Comment-free, but letting everybody comment on the New David Bowie Single, or the Daily Valenti "Menstruation is now Acceptable" or "Cat Calling: UK's Biggest Problem" articles. Won't be long before their NeuLabour Corbyn Bashing Articles are going to be declared Haram for CiF, since both Islamism and Corbyn subjects show that the majority of the commentariat has a non-Neoliberal, non-Multikult view of things the Graun Editors do not like.
As I said I agree with curious on the overlap, but for the reasons mentioned. Funny anectode is that in Germany a mayor and member of the (very pro-immigration since they get their votes from immigrants) green party is in danger of being slapped with party exclusion after stating that his small community simply cannot take in more refugees, which is simply a mathematical fact. By the same token one could refuse to work with Putin for his alleged KGB-past (and present?), but what good would that do? Better to work with somebody who has reasonable common-sense views than to find dirt on them and refuse to work together on what clearly are current global problems requiring coordinated solutions.
Check the OP to see how far things can get from the truth, e.g. "The first wave of 10,000 has already landed in New Orleans" when in fact a national total of 2,000 have arrived. UKIP tries to distance itself from obvious neo-Nazis carrying swastikas, but there has always been a lot of overlap. Basically, UKIP arose out of British nationalists wanting to replace Nazi symbols with British symbols, like Huey Long said of fascism coming to America wrapped in an American flag.
Nothing against calling it a nationalist or populist (I don't consider populist a negative term) party, but they are also non-interventionists and carry libertarian elements, so I think fascist or neo-nazi is simply wrong here, especially since breaking free from the EU would give the citizens of those countries far more freedom from the oppressive fascist eu-government in brussels. It's true that there is and has been overlap, but that is a problem of every protest party. Even Geert Wilders party in the Netherlands has been accused of that, and in Germany the anti-EU AfD. When there is only establishment to select from and finally a strong new protest party emerges you will see people from the fringe (and more radical) protest parties migrating over. And it is extremely problematic to slap them with a party exclusion because of their past should they get elected for obvious reasons. That goes for the far left and the far right.
This couldn't be farther from the truth. The UKIP has nothing to do with a Nazi party. Farage repeatedly speaks out against the new fear that Jewish people in Europe go through again because their leaders are too afraid to offend anybody (more likely they want votes and think being politically correct is the way to go). This allegation hinges on one picture taken of Farage with a friend/acquaintance who posts on stormfront (because he is a everything-is-a-zionist conspiracy guy like people here on this forum) and who also was a former secretary of UKIP. Nearly every party in every country has and has had outliers. It's that sort of identity politics that are responsible for the politically correct atmosphere of today which ironically employs nazi-like methods when it's time to gang up on someone from the opposite team. And this causes the gridlock we see today where nobody can hang and make common sense politics with another anymore because they may hang out with someone who they don't like. While it is understandable that some think Farage should pick his acquaintances more carefully I give zero fucks about the fact that one of his acquaintances posts on stormfrront. What I care about is what Farage says in the parliament and what the UKIP official policies of today are, and there is absolutely nothing that points to Nazi-like tendencies, quite the opposite.
It is blatantly lying, abolishing all standards of journalism. It's a fucked up state of the country where people jump on easily verifiable lies (just listen to the tape) and can't wait to flash 'racist' or 'fascist' on social media and mentally masturbate about how much smarter and better than the Donald they are, yelling 'pendejo!', flashing the middle-finger and have their kids blurt out obscenities against Trump, but they need safe spaces on campus when somebody wears a sombrero or says 'fuck'. That's why the Donald keeps marching through the polls, that cacophony is far worse to listen to than anything the Donald could ever blurt out.
Obviously the *only* reason it is proposed to accept refugees is because they are in immediate danger. I
Right. Actually this is the law in most European countries, incl. Germany. Economic migrants have no right to asylum, and the overall ratio has to stay reasonable. The rule of law has been blatantly abolished, seems to be a trend lately. Politicians who do that are traitors and should we put on trial.
What is the point here? Just whining that care is expensive?
What is the proposed solution?
There are a clear ways ACA is supposed to lower costs:
1 - a market place with cost competition on similar plans. Competition is the force that cut costs. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in markets in general.
2 - there is less cost by person if more people are covered
What's happening is that the sick sign up and the healthy withdraw, paying the penalty, and less competition as insurers withdraw. Also I remember graphs and posts on how healthcare inflation is supposedly lower since ACA, this narrative is now blown to pieces. Most companies see plan increases of 20%-30% this year (some may be able to negotiate down a little), how is that for inflation? A noble cause but no good when misused in the way Obama did it and pushed/rammed it through.
It's not hard at all to understand, mell, and I haven't said that people are wrong to distrust whether government can safely vet refugees or anyone for that matter. In fact, I've said accepting refugees right now would be foolish, but for some reason you don't really read what I say you just listen to what you hear.
By the way, reacting in fear is one of the least graceful things one can do. I am not concerned about nor do I fear an *invasion* of the West by ISIS. Neither do I sell short the agony they perpetrate. I fear an overreaction by people who have already forgotten how disastrous the Iraq war was. Blood lust is high right now. I don't owe it to anyone to pretend I support it, no matter how hurt we are by the deaths in Paris. And I don't plan to let you call me a liar without calling bullshit just because you're afraid.
Not sure why you internalize everything, you injected into the discussion of what I called blatant lie which I think is proven by the daily, weekly, monthly incidents, many caused by refugees/immigrants. Nobody said that you made that assertion. So what sort of overreaction have you seen? Not taking in more immigrants is not an overreaction, it's a natural reaction and common sense. Nobody is in the streets demanding the blood of resident immigrants or refugees, they are still being cared for and supported. There's propaganda that people are tired of (what backlash and repercussions?), and there is a difference between smart intake of some immigrants and giving up the roots of your country with unhinged immigration. The US is not there yet, but quite a few metropolitan areas in Europe have already arrived there.
To say that there is none is to have made something up and put it in the mouth of someone else who never said it. You're lying. Please try not to do that, or at least not to do it so poorly.
Sometimes it's just better to show some grace and not argue every point.even if you think people are overreacting. This hit home for many and the last thing people need is being constantly lectured. Half of the states already made their decision and they did so very clearly, so did many European countries, what is so hard to understand about it?
Name one person who has actually done that. Remarkable misdirection!
Calling someone's justified concern about the well-being of their family and loved-ones after the paris attacks and the history over the past years a fear-based program qualifies for me. We all know that the narrative is false that the refugees don't pose a threat. Patrick.net is full of posts and proof indicating otherwise. Now we can talk and speculate about how big of a security risk that is, but to say there is none is a blatant lie. I think careful vetting, letting in women and children only and possibly Christians (though this is of course hard to verify and can be spoofed) may be a decent middle-ground.