Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

K-9

People make generalisations about party support all the time, it isn't anything new and Trump supporters are quite good at it as well! It's fair to say Trump and Sanders attract certain types.

Dismissing both would sets of support would be mistake, but you do have to separate the wheat from the chaff!

KomradeBishop

recedite wrote: »

Here's a link that works better. TBH I don't fully understand what he is on about, but it seems to be a bit of "creative accounting" which seeks to show that the firms involved are capable of paying back the interest plus the capital to the banks. It is not concerned with where the money for the interest is coming from, or where it is created. It may not be created as part of that particular loan transaction, but it has to be created somewhere else in the system. Therefore it contributes to inflation. And the more profit the banks make, the more inflation they create.
I'd agree with the second comment/response to the blog in the link above, as made by mickeyc.

It is a bit hard to understand alright, it took me a while to fully grok it - essentially, it's confusing stocks (the money supply) with flows (the interest payments).

Paying down the principal of a debt, removes money from the economy, changing the stock of money - but the bank takes the interest payments as a profit, and then spends the interest back into the economy (through wages and such), creating a flow of money.

So, interest payments recirculate through the economy, whereas payments on the principal are removed from the economy.

So this means that the money used to pay the interest, can actually recirculate multiple times from economy->bank->economy->bank, without any new money being created, and it pays off a portion of the interest each time it recirculates - so the interest payments don't require any new money creation, in order to pay them off.

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

Not really what he was saying but it is factual in any case that the 9/11 terrorists were indeed Arabs mostly from Saudi Arabia. Its kinda hard to untangle the two, like trying not to think of German Nazi's when thinking of the Holocaust.

I guess that's why all Germans are banned from entering the US. Just until we figure out what's going on.

recedite wrote: »

Of course that is true, but some around here would have us believe that ordinary American toddlers have caused more murder and mayhem than Islamic jihadists.

How many people were killed in the US this year by jihadists? How many were killed by non-Muslims? How many were shot by toddlers?

orubiru wrote: »

I don't want to jump on the Islamophobia bandwagon here but wouldn't the motivation behind the shootings be more important than those who carry them out?

Not to a shooting victim, no.

The problem with the question is that it tilts towards the simplistic-to-the-point-of-dangerously-stupid belief that the motivation behind the shootings is Islam. The argument that all Muslim terrorists are Muslims, therefore Muslim causes terrorism is every bit as stupid and reductive as arguing that all toddlers who shoot people are under the age of four, therefore being under the age of four causes accidental shootings.

Is it InsertReligionHere-ophobia to suggest that killings that are explicitly motivated by religion...

This is the nonsense I'm talking about. The fact that some nutters cite their religion as motivation for their nuttery doesn't excuse punishing other followers of that religion.

The KKK was fundamentally a protestant Christian organisation. Should all protestants be treated as potentially violent racists? Just until we figure out what's going on, of course.

A Trump supporter is automatically a suspected racist/sexist/homophobe/whatever because the guy they are voting for has some controversial views BUT we shouldn't judge people when they follow a religion that teaches some highly controversial views?

Two things: if you support a politician who expresses the views Trump does, it's not unfair to infer that you are sympathetic to his "controversial views".

As for judging people who follow a religion: this is A&A. I'm cheerfully judgemental of anyone who follows a religion. But actively punishing people who quietly noodle along in their misguided beliefs for the actions of other people who are stupid and evil enough to kill for a different interpretation of those beliefs... that's just wrong.

orubiru wrote: »

Wasn't it just supposed to be a joke?

Hilarious.

Lurkio

FA Hayek wrote: »

Not really what he was saying but it is factual in any case that the 9/11 terrorists were indeed Arabs mostly from Saudi Arabia. Its kinda hard to untangle the two, like trying not to think of German Nazi's when thinking of the Holocaust.

I think some are to a fault trying to find offense and saddle up a moral high horse, which has been noted earlier is one of the reasons, among many that we now have the Donald as the GOP candidate for the White House. Do we have to be so serious all the time?

When your jokes are consistently unfunny, yes.

orubiru

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not to a shooting victim, no.

The problem with the question is that it tilts towards the simplistic-to-the-point-of-dangerously-stupid belief that the motivation behind the shootings is Islam. The argument that all Muslim terrorists are Muslims, therefore Muslim causes terrorism is every bit as stupid and reductive as arguing that all toddlers who shoot people are under the age of four, therefore being under the age of four causes accidental shootings.

It's not the same though. I am not saying that being a Muslim is the cause of the shooting so it doesn't not map to being under the age of four causes the accidents.

Although, if the kid was older than 4 they might understand why they shouldn't pull the trigger thus preventing the accident. It's easy to twist a point of view, I suppose.

You don't need to explain to me that most Muslims are good people. I already know that.

For extremists? Religion is a motivating factor. A fuel for the fire, if you like.

Who radicalises the radicals? Who turns moderates into extremists? How do regular people become terrorists?

You can't say that the people who were involved in the Charlie Hebdo shootings did it because they were Muslims because it's too simplistic, I agree. However, something motivated them to do what they did and it is surely related to religion. I am not saying "they did it because they are Muslim" but I am asking if their religion has inspired them to do it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is the nonsense I'm talking about. The fact that some nutters cite their religion as motivation for their nuttery doesn't excuse punishing other followers of that religion.

The KKK was fundamentally a protestant Christian organisation. Should all protestants be treated as potentially violent racists? Just until we figure out what's going on, of course.

Of course not. I totally agree with you. We shouldn't be so quick to judge and we shouldn't just throw everyone into arbitrary groups as a pre-requisite for judging.

Should we apply the same logic to Trump supporters?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Two things: if you support a politician who expresses the views Trump does, it's not unfair to infer that you are sympathetic to his "controversial views".

Then it's not unfair to infer that Muslims are sympathetic to some extremely controversial views. Views on atheism, apostasy, homosexuality etc.

Better to speak to individuals on an individual basis right? It would be egregious to immediately assume that someone is a racist because they had decided to vote for Trump, right?

How does this work in one direction but not in the other direction?

Is it one of those things where it has to be prejudice PLUS power?

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for judging people who follow a religion: this is A&A. I'm cheerfully judgemental of anyone who follows a religion.

I honestly think that people refuse to separate criticising the religion from criticising it's followers. If you criticise the religion then, actually racist, people who criticise only the followers will misunderstand and congratulate you. Criticising Islam puts you on the same side as the Christian Right and that's not really a good place to be.

In my circle of friends I can dump on Christianity all day long and it's fine (if I wanted to). Say awful things about Jesus? Haha. It's all funny. Make a joke about Mohammed? Don't do that, you racist scum.

On this site, and many others online, people have a kind of dilemma where they don't want to criticise Islam because it creates the illusion that you are in league with people who actually just hate Muslims.

This is especially visible in the wake of incidents like those in Paris or Brussels recently. People worried about what Internet Racists might say on Facebook or Twitter while religious fanatics shout "God is great" and blow up some innocent people.

oscarBravo wrote: »

But actively punishing people who quietly noodle along in their misguided beliefs for the actions of other people who are stupid and evil enough to kill for a different interpretation of those beliefs... that's just wrong.

So, again, I agree with you. However, you'd have to apply the same "it's not everyone" logic to those who support Trump. Most of them aren't bad people. They haven't killed anyone or harmed anyone. They don't want to harm or kill anyone, most of them.

Yet we vilify them constantly, and we pat ourselves on the back while we do it. What's that all about?

oscarBravo

orubiru wrote: »

Who radicalises the radicals? Who turns moderates into extremists? How do regular people become terrorists?

These are all interesting and important questions. It's important to discuss them if we're to address the very real problem of radicalisation.

Alternatively, we could just ban all Muslims from entering a country. Sure, it's a stupid idea: but it doesn't require nearly the same mental effort as actually trying to understand the problem, which I guess is why it appeals to some.

You can't say that the people who were involved in the Charlie Hebdo shootings did it because they were Muslims because it's too simplistic, I agree. However, something motivated them to do what they did and it is surely related to religion. I am not saying "they did it because they are Muslim" but I am asking if their religion has inspired them to do it.

Their religion is a factor, sure. But if it was the factor, then we'd have over a billion jihadists in the world.

I'm not arguing with the proposition that some people who are Muslims do terrible things, and that they ostensibly do so in the name of Islam. I'm arguing against the phenomenally stupid idea that it's OK to discriminate against all Muslims because of the actions of almost none of them.

I'm also aware that you are also arguing against the idea, but it wasn't with you that I initially started this discussion.

Of course not. I totally agree with you. We shouldn't be so quick to judge and we shouldn't just throw everyone into arbitrary groups as a pre-requisite for judging.

Should we apply the same logic to Trump supporters?

Well, there's a difference.

Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims agree that their religion permits wanton violence. But every single Trump supporter is expressing their approval of a man who blithely associates "Mexican" with "rapist"; a man who mocks people with disabilities; a man whose main mode of argument is name-calling; a man who suggests that a woman who asks him pointed questions is menstruating.

I was raised Catholic. I believed a lot of stupid crap for a fair percentage of my life because I was indoctrinated from birth. I have sympathy for people who believe in the rubbish Islam teaches them. I have very little sympathy for people who have freely chosen to support Donald Trump.

Then it's not unfair to infer that Muslims are sympathetic to some extremely controversial views. Views on atheism, apostasy, homosexuality etc.

I'll agree that that's the case for someone who converts to Islam as an adult. But most Muslims I've encountered don't give a damn about any of those things: they live, and they let live.

Better to speak to individuals on an individual basis right? It would be egregious to immediately assume that someone is a racist because they had decided to vote for Trump, right?

If someone has decided that they're comfortable with the idea of collective punishment of all Muslims for the actions of an infinitesimal minority; if someone has decided that it's OK to talk about Mexico sending rapists - I don't know that it's that unfair to question that supporter's motives.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand how the "I'm not racist, but I'm voting for a racist" cognitive dissonance works.

In my circle of friends I can dump on Christianity all day long and it's fine (if I wanted to). Say awful things about Jesus? Haha. It's all funny. Make a joke about Mohammed? Don't do that, you racist scum.

In my circle of friends, all gods and prophets are equal opportunity targets.

On this site, and many others online, people have a kind of dilemma where they don't want to criticise Islam because it creates the illusion that you are in league with people who actually just hate Muslims.

I have no problem criticising Islam. It's a religion, which makes it a load of made-up hooey just like Christianity or Jainism or whatever.

My problem is with people who use the "some terrorists are Muslims, therefore all Muslims are potential terrorists and fair game for blatant xenophobia" line.

I think religion is stupid, but that doesn't mean that I think it's OK to discriminate against the adherents of one particular religion.

So, again, I agree with you. However, you'd have to apply the same "it's not everyone" logic to those who support Trump. Most of them aren't bad people. They haven't killed anyone or harmed anyone. They don't want to harm or kill anyone, most of them.

No: they just want to elect a president who wants to discriminate against the adherents of one specific religion, and who has expressed a desire to murder the families of terrorists.

They may not be bad people, but if they're planning to vote for a bad person, they don't get a pass from being criticised for it.

KingBrian2

KomradeBishop wrote: »

'The Market' only gets to be 'harsh' with economies, because those economies issue government bonds i.e. public debt - whose interest rate markets get to influence.

If they stopped issuing public debt, while at the same time having a national currency they control, markets would have fúck all influence on these national economies - and the democracies these economies are built upon, would be far better off as a result, as they would be far less influenced by the undemocratic forces of 'the market'.


A good work ethic, and 'cut[ting] back on spending', are mutually exclusive.

It is impossible to have Full Employment all of the time (i.e. a good work ethic), unless the government of a country is willing to spend, when the private sector doesn't want all of the workers (i.e. when there is high unemployment) - and especially, when private banks are unable to lend, in sufficient quantity.

What I am talking about, is not socializing debt - it is eliminating public debt entirely, as the out-of-date anachronism that it is.

We can't all live in a debt free society. Are banking rules are based on giving and receiving. You want to totally transform the banking model that has been around for generations. Our banking structures have been like this since the middle ages.

The Medici's had the concept of interest and issuing debt to benefactors. How many times in history have countries gone bankrupt precisely as a result of bad investments? Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Spain, Scotland, Mexico, Soviet Union. No what I see are easy solutions to reduce the debts that were taken on in the first place. Which is not a wise solution at all.

Greeks are expecting to receive another Bailout and want a more favorable approach to be taken. The ECB should stand its ground and wait until the Greeks have shown they are serious about having a better economy.

Another way of putting it is if the Greeks don't care about Greece why should the rest of the world as shown by the market be willing to buy Greek bonds. Their is a high chance a Greek gvt will renege on the deal. If Greeks want market turmoil than don't invite me to the party.

timmyntc

Lurkio wrote: »

When your jokes are consistently unfunny, yes.

Nice deflection.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Their religion is a factor, sure. But if it was the factor, then we'd have over a billion jihadists in the world.

So you agree that Islam is a factor. Good.
Would you agree that Christianity is a factor in terrorist attacks? No? Well then what does that say about Islam?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm also aware that you are also arguing against the idea, but it wasn't with you that I initially started this discussion. Well, there's a difference.

Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims agree that their religion permits wanton violence. But every single Trump supporter is expressing their approval of a man who blithely associates "Mexican" with "rapist"; a man who mocks people with disabilities; a man whose main mode of argument is name-calling; a man who suggests that a woman who asks him pointed questions is menstruating.

You mention how, just because a Muslim is well, Muslim, that doesn't mean they endorse everything mentioned in Islam, nor do they endorse Mohammed and his child brides, I assume you'll agree with me on this.
However in the same breath you state that because a Trump voter votes for Trump, they automatically endorse every single thing Trump has ever said or done. Very ironic, coming from the person who just complained about 'cognitive dissonance'. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo wrote: »

If someone has decided that they're comfortable with the idea of collective punishment of all Muslims for the actions of an infinitesimal minority; if someone has decided that it's OK to talk about Mexico sending rapists - I don't know that it's that unfair to question that supporter's motives.

Again, you have made blind, baseless assumptions about the majority based not even on the minority, but based on Trump. There are plenty of reasons someone would support Trump, the majority of which are not that a hypothetical muslim ban.
And if Mexico were sending rapists across the border, why would it be so bad to talk about it?
Here you have already assumed a supporter's motives, and then used those assumed motives to justify making assumptions about their motives. Mental gymnastics at it's finest.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand how the "I'm not racist, but I'm voting for a racist" cognitive dissonance works.

Do you think everybody in Nazi Germany who voted for Hitler hated the Jews? Or that everyone who voted Boris Johnson into office was a racist aswell? Or that everyone who votes Sinn Fein is a terrorist sympathiser?
I would hope you don't think that, because that's incredibly small minded. In fact it's almost like having an irrational fear or assumption about a group of people based on their beliefs. Sound familiar?

oscarBravo wrote: »

My problem is with people who use the "some terrorists are Muslims, therefore all Muslims are potential terrorists and fair game for blatant xenophobia" line.

Again, the irony. You denounce those who make assumptions based on the minority or the 'belief', but do the exact same thing in your generalizations of Trump supporters.

oscarBravo wrote: »

They may not be bad people, but if they're planning to vote for a bad person, they don't get a pass from being criticised for it.

Then it should follow that members of an organized religion which in some ways promotes, shall we say unsavoury behaviour to certain groups of people, should be open to criticism as well, not shielded by it.
After all, criticism is how we learn and better ourselves.

oscarBravo

timmyntc wrote: »

So you agree that Islam is a factor. Good.
Would you agree that Christianity is a factor in terrorist attacks? No? Well then what does that say about Islam?

Ah, the old "all terrorists are Muslims" falsehood.

You mention how, just because a Muslim is well, Muslim, that doesn't mean they endorse everything mentioned in Islam, nor do they endorse Mohammed and his child brides, I assume you'll agree with me on this.
However in the same breath you state that because a Trump voter votes for Trump, they automatically endorse every single thing Trump has ever said or done. Very ironic, coming from the person who just complained about 'cognitive dissonance'. :rolleyes:

I also explained the difference. I don't know whether you were too busy rolling your eyes to read that part, or if I need to explain it to you again. Do let me know.

Again, you have made blind, baseless assumptions about the majority based not even on the minority, but based on Trump. There are plenty of reasons someone would support Trump, the majority of which are not that a hypothetical muslim ban.

His entire campaign is built on a platform of racism, xenophobia, sexism, personal abuse, and vagueness on policy details.

Clearly you believe that the majority of his supporters are so taken by his many qualities that they're prepared to forgive (as, apparently, they don't condone) his racism, sexism etc. What exactly are these amazing qualities, that they can so completely overshadow the negatives?

And if Mexico were sending rapists across the border, why would it be so bad to talk about it?

Sending rapists across the border.

Have you heard yourself? Seriously?

Do you think everybody in Nazi Germany who voted for Hitler hated the Jews? Or that everyone who voted Boris Johnson into office was a racist aswell? Or that everyone who votes Sinn Fein is a terrorist sympathiser?
I would hope you don't think that, because that's incredibly small minded. In fact it's almost like having an irrational fear or assumption about a group of people based on their beliefs. Sound familiar?

Well, seeing as you've Godwinned the conversation already, let me ask you this: would you vote for a child rapist? Would you say to yourself, I don't agree with his views on child rape, but other than that, he's the man for me?

Trump supporters are supporting a man who has said of Mexicans: "they're rapists". They are supporting a man who has proposed banning all Muslims from entering the country. They are supporting a man who has mocked a reporter with a disability. They are supporting a man who has repeatedly said demeaning things about women.

So no: I don't think that all Trump supporters agree 100% with everything he says. (You can tell I don't think that primarily from the fact that I've never said it.) But I don't think it's unfair to ask questions of people who have consciously chosen to express their support for a man who holds these views. They may not hold those views themselves, but they're happy to be represented by a man who does. They may not be racist, but they have freely chosen to support a man who is.

Then it should follow that members of an organized religion which in some ways promotes, shall we say unsavoury behaviour to certain groups of people, should be open to criticism as well, not shielded by it.
After all, criticism is how we learn and better ourselves.

Yes. Because being indoctrinated in a belief system from birth, and choosing to vote for a racist, are exactly the same thing.

By the way: I've never suggested that Muslims should be immune from criticism. I've merely argued that they shouldn't be collectively punished. When I start arguing that all Trump supporters should be banned from entering the country, come back to me.

Lurkio

timmyntc wrote: »

Nice (............) and better ourselves.

Well what exactly goes through the mind of the average voter backing Trump I've no idea. What goes on in the mind of many Trump supporters on here though, is a deep attraction to anti-muslim rhetoric, racism and so on. Perhaps its just the boards sample that's causing the supposedly skewed view.

Qs

timmyntc wrote: »

Would you agree that Christianity is a factor in terrorist attacks? No? Well then what does that say about Islam?

What? Of course it is.

timmyntc wrote: »

Again, you have made blind, baseless assumptions about the majority based not even on the minority, but based on Trump. There are plenty of reasons someone would support Trump, the majority of which are not that a hypothetical muslim ban.

If you vote for Trump you are supporting that potential Muslim ban though, whether you agree with it or not. Being a Muslim does not mean you support the actions of terrorists, there is no direct action. Silly comparison.

oscarBravo

Qs wrote: »

What? Of course it is.

What, you didn't get the "all terrorists are Muslims" memo?

KingBrian2

Lurkio wrote: »

Well what exactly goes through the mind of the average voter backing Trump I've no idea. What goes on in the mind of many Trump supporters on here though, is a deep attraction to anti-muslim rhetoric, racism and so on. Perhaps its just the boards sample that's causing the supposedly skewed view.

Trump is not anti Muslim he is anti Islamist as we all know so called Muslims are killing their own kind in Syria and Iraq. Shi'ites as much Islamic as their killers are being killed. Trump is being attacked because he is not afraid to inform the people that the jihadists are being protected and sympathized by Muslims in Europe and America.

Trump is caught up in the paradox of a religious war within Islam. His personal convictions on religion are not in question. Vicious Islamism has spread across the world. They have become household names.

Muslim Brotherhood
Al Qaeda
Al Nusra
Al Sham
Islamic Jihad

These are the people Trump are talking about not the friendly Muslims that we are being fed by the media are over here wanting to become citizens.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump is not anti Muslim he is anti Islamist...

It's amazing how the standard defence of Trump is: "ignore what he says; let's talk about what I think he means."

Pop quiz: last December, we were told that "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of _______ entering the United States..."

Fill in the blank:

(a) Muslims
(b) Islamists

Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's amazing how the standard defence of Trump is: "ignore what he says; let's talk about what I think he means."

Pop quiz: last December, we were told that "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of _______ entering the United States..."

Fill in the blank:

(a) Muslims
(b) Islamists

Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

He also said we should ban all Muslims until America sorts out the problem with that part of the world. Yes I know it is vague although its a good approach to take.

Absolam

What makes it a good approach to take?

KomradeBishop

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We can't all live in a debt free society. Are banking rules are based on giving and receiving. You want to totally transform the banking model that has been around for generations. Our banking structures have been like this since the middle ages.

The Medici's had the concept of interest and issuing debt to benefactors. How many times in history have countries gone bankrupt precisely as a result of bad investments? Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Spain, Scotland, Mexico, Soviet Union. No what I see are easy solutions to reduce the debts that were taken on in the first place. Which is not a wise solution at all.

Greeks are expecting to receive another Bailout and want a more favorable approach to be taken. The ECB should stand its ground and wait until the Greeks have shown they are serious about having a better economy.

Another way of putting it is if the Greeks don't care about Greece why should the rest of the world as shown by the market be willing to buy Greek bonds. Their is a high chance a Greek gvt will renege on the deal. If Greeks want market turmoil than don't invite me to the party.

No, I was talking about public debt, not private debt - you don't need to change banking at all, to do what I was talking about.

As Trump said - and he's right - a country with control over its own currency, using a fiat currency, can never go bankrupt - we're not living in medieval economies (even though economic practice is roughly a century or more out of date...). You can't reduce economics down to simplistic debt-based-moralizing either.

Euro countries, like Greece, are also not comparable to what I'm talking about, because they don't have control over their own currency.

pauldla

He seems to be changing his tune, for some reason...

Trump: Muslim ban ‘just a suggestion’

DONALD TRUMP appeared to subtly soften his tone on his proposed ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States Wednesday, in apparent response to criticism from the newly elected Muslim mayor of London.

The planned ban, Trump said on Fox News Radio’s “Kilmeade and Friends,” is only “temporary.”

“It hasn’t been called for yet. Nobody’s done it,” the presumptive Republican nominee said.
“This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on.”

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

I'm visualising an episode of South Park where the real perpetrators of the 9/11 massacres are tiny ginger toddlers dressed up as arabs. They cross the tarmac walking on stilts and saying "dirka dirka dirka" to each other.
Its all part of a dastardly plan by the Trump-toddlers to frame the innocent jihadists.

Personally I think it sounds more like the plot of a Team Americal sequel.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a fascinating, albeit terrifying, glimpse into your psyche: in order to imagine someone as a killer, you have to mentally picture them as an arab.

Bizarre.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hilarious.

Do not, under any circumstances, watch Team America. I suspect your sense of humour failure might cause you a stroke or something.

MrP

JPNelsforearm

Absolam wrote: »

What makes it a good approach to take?

context.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

context.

.....I don't get it, whats the context?

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

.....I don't get it, whats the context?

When he said it, it was directly after a bunch of descendants of muslim immigrants trained up in Syria and slipped back into Europe by pretending to be Syrian immigrants and proceeded to massacre 130 people in Paris(injuring over 300) and later 32 in Brussels(also injuring over 300).

Thats the context.

Absolam

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

When he said it, it was directly after a bunch of descendants of muslim immigrants trained up in Syria and slipped back into Europe by pretending to be Syrian immigrants and proceeded to massacre 130 people in Paris(injuring over 300) and later 32 in Brussels(also injuring over 300).
Thats the context.

The context is twelve out of approx 6 million Muslims (or is it 3.7 million immigrants, whichever you're going for) were involved in an act of violence? That doesn't seem to be a very good context for wanting to ban Muslim immigrants... are you sure you have the right one?

FA Hayek

MrPudding wrote: »

Do not, under any circumstances, watch Team America. I suspect your sense of humour failure might cause you a stroke or something.

MrP

That reminds of the time Australian film critic David Stratton threw the preverbal dummy out of the pram when asked to comment on Team American. I can't find a video of said dummy throwing but the transcript makes hilarious reading.

http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s1248889.htm

Margaret: David?

David: I think this film makes 'South Park' look like a model of maturity and sophistication.

Margaret: Yes. Absolutely.

David: This film starts off with a good scene, I think, the scene where the Team America attack Arab terrorists in Paris and succeed in destroying half of Paris and all the famous landmarks.

Margaret: It's a good start, isn't it?

David: It's a good start. But then I think it really goes off the rails, because it, I know it's trying to hit all targets, as nothing is sacred, but it seems to become completely skewed, in the second half of the film, towards attacking liberals in the film industry.

And to be honest, I think people like Sean Penn and Tim Robbins have been very principled in what they've said about the Iraqi War and I think that to deliberately destroy them the way this film does is really playing into the hands of George W. Bush. I think George W. Bush would love this film if it were not for some of the bad language.

Margaret: (Chuckles) Oh, David! Well, it makes a change from them attacking Mel Gibson, for example, which they do frequently.

David: I was really disgusted by this film.

Margaret: Oh, David!

David: I think the puppets are very ugly. I don't think that side of it works very well.

Margaret: They're meant to be. I don't think you got it. It's 4 stars from me anyway.

David: I don't know about 'got it'. I did get it and I really didn't like it. I'm giving it 1.

Notice he hates the film because it attacks liberal hollywood, even though the film attacks, well everyone including GOP hawks. No one comes away from the film unscathed.

Its funny that people love taking the mick out of other things but once you cross the line into things they hold dear, then you do not have to wait all that long for people to climb onto that moral horse and wait for that serious lecture like one would get from an old headmaster.

Going off topic, but people need to seriously lighten up. I do not think you are going to get serious philosophical breakthrough in a thread titled ' Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)'.

JPNelsforearm

Absolam wrote: »

The context is twelve out of approx 6 million Muslims (or is it 3.7 million immigrants, whichever you're going for) were involved in an act of violence? That doesn't seem to be a very good context for wanting to ban Muslim immigrants... are you sure you have the right one?

How many dead or raped Europeans does it take?


Also lol, at "an act of violence", yes that all those attacks were, "a random act of violence".

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

When he said it, it was directly after a bunch of descendants of muslim immigrants trained up in Syria and slipped back into Europe by pretending to be Syrian immigrants and proceeded to massacre 130 people in Paris(injuring over 300) and later 32 in Brussels(also injuring over 300).

Thats the context.

So collective punishment of a religion for the sins of a tiny minority. Its a good thing they didn't decide to try and take the same approach after the scandal in the Boston diocese.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

When he said it, it was directly after a bunch of descendants of muslim immigrants trained up in Syria and slipped back into Europe by pretending to be Syrian immigrants and proceeded to massacre 130 people in Paris(injuring over 300) and later 32 in Brussels(also injuring over 300).

Thats the context.

So you approve of the collective punishment of all Muslims for the actions of almost none of them.

Can I take any identifiable group of whom almost none have committed atrocities, and collectively punish that entire group? Would that be OK with you? Or is it only OK because they are Muslims?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you approve of the collective punishment of all Muslims for the actions of almost none of them.

Can I take any identifiable group of whom almost none have committed atrocities, and collectively punish that entire group? Would that be OK with you? Or is it only OK because they are Muslims?

Im not calling for a ban solely on muslims, Im just giving the context to Trumps words, which was against the backdrop of an islamic terror attack perpetrated by refugees, or those posing as refugees.

If members of the Russian Orthodox church were committing terrorist attacks across Europe with the goal of restoring the Holy roman empire, after 1400 plus years of war and attacks on Europes borders leading right up to the loss and ethnic cleansing of East Thrace in the 1920s, as is the case with Islam, then yeah... obviously a discussion on secure borders would come up


Its not only terrorism, crime, social welfare spend, demographic growth, but terrorism is the biggest signifier of an alien presence within Europe, its not a nationalistic or other goal they have, its conquest pure and simple.

Even then I have no personal animus towards any muslim, terror attack or not, I dont blame them personally. However they are part of a regressive cult that has been at war with Europe for over a thousand years, the social and financial costs of taking on their burdens are not worth it. They are the trojan horse for the intolerant minority. Frankly, there is not a single benefit to mass immigration, islamic or otherwise, so why participate in the charade? Stop all non essential immigration, thats my position, I dont discriminate on the basis of ones religion.

Lurkio

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

...................

Even then I have no personal animus towards any muslim, terror attack or not, I dont blame them personally. However they are part of a regressive cult that has been at war with Europe for over a thousand years, the social and financial costs of taking on their burdens are not worth it. They are the trojan horse for the intolerant minority. Frankly, there is not a single benefit to mass immigration, islamic or otherwise, so why participate in the charade? Stop all non essential immigration, thats my position, I dont discriminate on the basis of ones religion.

'I've nothing against muslims, its just they're part of a hive minded cult.....'

The Onion should get you in.

JPNelsforearm

Lurkio wrote: »

'I've nothing against muslims, its just they're part of a hive minded cult.....'

The Onion should get you in.

Its like saying I should have something personally against Scottish protestant settlers for occupying six counties and instituting apartheid among many other historical atrocities, shocker, I dont, even though they are part of the hive minded unionist cult....