Attacking the source rather than the content.
Man reality must be so convenient for you. Any time you don't like the conclusions some one makes all you have to do is dismiss their lack of authority. It is brilliant! You have no argument, that is why you much attack the source rather than the content... again... The left has been engaged in not only violent rhetoric, but regular acts of violence against the right for YEARS and it has been increasing. Now they want to turn around and point fingers at the right when they then feel threatened and act as if the right instigated it. This is horse shit. You may continue to live in delusion land, but thousands of people will see your ignorant and desperate struggle to try to avoid this topic so you can point fingers at Trump as well as the right in general. As I said from the beginning, this was an attempt to cast the left as victims, and demonize the right. This wasn't an attack, the bombs weren't real, this was a RESIST™ branded Hollywood produced October surprise. |
|
|
|
I'm not blaming anyone. Once again: I'm just saying that the current situations could be much worse if Hillary Clinton and Democrats (which still plays an important role in the US establishment and planning to take part in next elections, she is pretty far from being "nobody") were in charge of the country. Anyway, today's global politics is an insanely dirty thing, no matter which party is having the majority.
Hillary Clinton is a wannabe republican... she is well-known as a "war-hawk" and is not typical of democrats... her policies were more right-wing than left-wing... she claimed to be a "centrist", but acted more like a Republican than a Democrat (sellout to all the special interests like war, pharmaceuticals, etc)
She was so right that she decided to increase income taxes. Increase welfare and open borders for immigrants (what democrats were continuously doing for the last years). Typical right-wing behavior. Don't bother trying to argue with these people. They came here to circle jerk each other and normalize each others behavior. They have no desire for an accurate examination of reality, they are here to virtue signal how superior they think they are and how evil they think the right is. No one look at Communism btw, those hundreds of millions of dead don't count as leftist violence! Just like Hillary Clinton or anyone else who counters the narrative of exclusively right violence. |
|
|
|
Trump hates colored people and poor people... these are both, so he hates them double Trump is breaking international law... specifically, The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_RefugeesA person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
I really hate to see Trump destroy international laws... I consider that a crime against humanity If you notice, being poor and wanting a job is not on that list. |
|
|
|
Good point. I’ve also noticed how the spotlight is now being placed on AI. Why? It’s not the only technology that would be imperative in the future. What about blockchain, virtual and augmented realities? These could all contribute to singularity, correct?
AI with the ability to engage in commerce? I would say so. |
|
|
|
Oh is that a fact? Gee because to me it pretty clearly looked like as I linked in the PREVIOUS ARTICLES they were talking about making Mexico a safe harbor nation, and since it is a such now, passing thru a safe harbor nation to get to another safe harbor nation pretty thoroughly demonstrates that the motivation is economic, not because of "oppression" or something as the asylum laws were ACTUALLY designed to take people in. "An alien is considered to be firmly resettled if, prior to arrival in the United States, he or she entered into another country with, or while in that country received, an offer of permanent resident status, citizenship, or some other type of permanent resettlement unless he or she establishes: " Mexico has offered them asylum. They don't get to cherry pick where to they run from "oppression" (ie poverty). Poverty is not an admissible asylum status regardless. |
|
|
|
but why didn't you respond to the previous post? My theory that capitalists won't discuss socialism unless they can frame it as authoritarian government capitalism seems to be holding true.
You believe whatever suits you, and you make shit up to confirm your biases. Thanks for the demo on that. You are incapable of having a debate any way. Your brain is a pile of postmodernist mash sloshing around with no form or definition ready to fill any bias you present to it. However if you happen to be able to form a premise I would be glad to dismantle it again making you look like the simple person you are... again... |
|
|
|
Republicans create terrorists, Democrats create Obamacare! The far right is full of religitards kk nuff said.
You might want to check out who started the KKK... You should probably check out what political party the current KKK and most other far right mentally deficient Americans support! That's a cute delusion. BTW, if anyone was wondering the KKK was created by and heavily supported by Democrats. here is some more "monopoly" for you: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-30/brief-history-leftist-political-violence-year |
|
|
|
Republicans create terrorists, Democrats create Obamacare! The far right is full of religitards kk nuff said.
You might want to check out who started the KKK... |
|
|
|
The President has direct executive authority over concerns of immigration. It is pretty clearly defined. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline. |
|
|
|
I asked for you to cite the law you claimed was being broken and you have yet to do that... I am sorry your precious feelings are hurt but I like to call stupid people stupid, not enough of that going around these days!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't mind me I'm not a politically correct liberal... Another article but I don't see the law you claim they're breaking, did the agreement get signed?? Tell me again, what gives you the right as a Canadian to tell people in the US how to live?
Nothing gives me the right and I have never once said I have any right to tell you how to live....... theymos however gives me the opportunity to discuss whatever fucking topic I motherfucking feel like regardless of what fucking country I fucking live in... What gives you the right to question my ability to express my opinion here sounds like you want to censor me.... That's cute coming from you and your barely literate commie buddies dogpiling. How would I even begin to censor you? What am I gonna fly to Canada and take your maple syrup and your favorite hockey stick? You don't vote here, you don't pay taxes here, and you don't have to pay the long term costs. It is easy to be charitable on some one elses dime. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/208.15Happy now cupcake? Or do you plan on continuing this fit? have some more: "(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 |
|
|
|
Oh I SEEE, it becomes more nuanced when it is your nation. I get it.
It's not more nuanced if I was American I would say the exact same thing. Process them by the laws currently on the books. BTW none of these people have legal claim to asylum here... that only applies to the nation you first step foot in after leaving your own. IE none of them are here to enter legally.
I would be interested in reading the source information for this claim. The first country you step into after leaving your country is irrelevant to seeking asylum in Canada. This isn't Canada. From a pro asylum site: https://www.asylumist.com/2011/02/02/new-asylum-law-in-mexico-could-reduce-the-flow-of-refugees-to-the-u-s/"As I’ve discussed in this blog previously, African, Chinese, and other asylum seekers enter the United States at the Mexican border and then file for asylum in the U.S. If these people pass through Mexico without requesting asylum, it could negatively impact their chances for success in the United States (for example, they might be deemed less credible). If they request asylum in Mexico, and their request is granted, they would be ineligible for asylum in the U.S., as they would be “firmly resettled” in Mexico for purposes of the immigration law." You quote some weird site referencing a Mexican law LOL good one bro!! I hope you're not a lawyer IRL!!! And the site doesn't even say its illegal to seek asylum after entering Mexico it just says "it could negatively impact their chances for success in the United States" in what type of a pea brain is that the same as "none of these people have legal claim to asylum here" BTW none of these people have legal claim to asylum here... that only applies to the nation you first step foot in after leaving your own
It might help your case if you could cite some actual AMERICAN laws to back up a claim that seeking asylum is illegal unless you go from your own country directly to the US. YAWN. Rather than actually look into it you default with the insults and the predictable childishness. Tell me again, what gives you the right as a Canadian to tell people in the US how to live? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/world/americas/mexico-migrants-caravan-asylum.html |
|
|
|
Oh I SEEE, it becomes more nuanced when it is your nation. I get it.
It's not more nuanced if I was American I would say the exact same thing. Process them by the laws currently on the books. BTW none of these people have legal claim to asylum here... that only applies to the nation you first step foot in after leaving your own. IE none of them are here to enter legally.
I would be interested in reading the source information for this claim. The first country you step into after leaving your country is irrelevant to seeking asylum in Canada. This isn't Canada. From a pro asylum site: https://www.asylumist.com/2011/02/02/new-asylum-law-in-mexico-could-reduce-the-flow-of-refugees-to-the-u-s/"As I’ve discussed in this blog previously, African, Chinese, and other asylum seekers enter the United States at the Mexican border and then file for asylum in the U.S. If these people pass through Mexico without requesting asylum, it could negatively impact their chances for success in the United States (for example, they might be deemed less credible). If they request asylum in Mexico, and their request is granted, they would be ineligible for asylum in the U.S., as they would be “firmly resettled” in Mexico for purposes of the immigration law." |
|
|
|
If you want to talk about left-wing terrorism vs right-wing terrorism... there is no contest... simply check wikipedia: The wikipedia article for Left-Wing Terrorism in the united states consists of a single paragraph ending with: (...) After 1985, following the dismantling of both groups, one source reports there were no confirmed acts of left-wing terrorism by similar groups.
The wikipedia article for Right-Wing Terrorism in the united states consists of 5 paragraphs ending in a list of 38 items since 2003, mostly murders and mass murders: See also: Domestic terrorism in the United States(...) New America's tally shows that since September 11, 2001, incidents of right-wing extremism have caused 86 deaths. Incidents causing death were: (...) (check link if you care) As predicted, you don't care to have a debate, you would rather inject other side topics over and over again. Why? because you know you have no argument, so you have to manufacture an opinion for me for you to defeat. The left has no grounds calling for blame over rhetoric let alone violence based on the past several years of their own behavior. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-30/brief-history-leftist-political-violence-year |
|
|
|
Maybe we should send them on through to Canada? What do you guys think?
I would be in favour of them entering Canada by any legal means possible. If they show up on our border seeking asylum I would expect our government to follow Canadian laws and process them as compassionately as possible according to the fucking laws we have on the books. I assume if they made it here they would be vetted and some would be allowed to come here for a chance at a better life and pay taxes and contribute to our society. Any person that can walk with their kids for thousands of miles is someone I would personally consider hiring based on their sheer determination & tenacity. I also think the Canadian PM would be smart enough to ask the humanitarian organizations to assist in helping assimilate or maybe find other countries that need immigrants. Everything is a fucking problem for you guys and an attack holy shit its a few thousand civilians with children, I guess you're nation is so fragile it feels under invasion by a few thousand scared 3rd world civilians, wow you guys are tough AND cool! I would be ashamed to be Canadian if we unilaterally said FUCK off losers, to any group of people... Oh I SEEE, it becomes more nuanced when it is your nation. I get it. BTW none of these people have legal claim to asylum here... that only applies to the nation you first step foot in after leaving your own. IE none of them are here to enter legally. |
|
|
|
War hasn't been declared, but an uninvited horde of thousands intent on abusing our system, or otherwise ignoring our borders, is an invasion. You can paint it any way you like if you prefer alternate semantics. You are also welcome to ignore the cost to, and effect on our society, the strain it puts on the middle class. You can minimize the difficulty in vetting the horde for criminals and insane, and possibly terrorists.
I hope you guys have enough bullets, I hear babies are harder to hit! Maybe you guys could ask the Saudi's for some advice on how to use your missiles to bomb civilians! Seriously you need to send thousands of military personal to stop a horde of a few thousand unarmed, walking civilians. Cool! Maybe we should send them on through to Canada? What do you guys think? |
|
|
|
|
*for the children of illegal aliens
|
|
|
|
Yes, why address the substance of the point, the years of leftist violence against the right, when you can avoid it with side topics?
Because you haven't shown me any evidence of it... a list of bullshit claims that has been debunked is not evidence Sorry, not sorry If you want to debate with me, bring facts to the table, not bullshit propaganda that is so easily debunked Hey, if you have no argument, just pretend the facts aren't there and continue to live in your bubble of preferred alternate reality. No one really believes the left haven't been violent against conservatives on nearly a daily basis since 2016, except people like you running around punching "nazis" of course. Yep... none of this ever happened... go back to sleep https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDwoWscEOTshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hthHHX-oJh8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU-kIunAVRghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSjIOHvdlYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw9kyYEwg2Ahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyHB0COkw3shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRUF5FIIeVIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIMomsIsfREYOU brought up leftist violence as a "side topic", not me... do you even realize how much of yourself you project onto others, so you can blame them for your own actions? (self-aware much?)
If you want to debate with me, bring facts to the table, not bullshit propaganda that is so easily debunked and dismissed
You mean the side topic of the left pointing at Trump and conservatives in general and blaming their "rhetoric" for these attacks? The point (which I am sure you will promptly ignore) was that the media was silent about violence from the left directed at the right, and furthermore stoked it. Now they want to point fingers. A lot of you stood silent as these things happened. Guess what... this is the result... we all live in violence. |
|
|
|
Yes, why address the substance of the point, the years of leftist violence against the right, when you can avoid it with side topics? I was simply pointing out the fact that you claimed the bombs were fake, but the ricin is real... this is not hypocrisy on my part, it was your claim not mine
Also, if someone gives me a list of bullshit claims, and I fact-check 2 of them... and both of those claims are false and/or unsubstantiated... what should I assume about the other dozen claims on the list?
I dunno. People who actually give a shit usually don't have to be told what to do about it. |
|
|
|
Problem is... I tried fact checking 2 of the outrageous claims in your image... and both of them were bullshit, so I assume the rest of that list is bullshit too... I checked on your claim, "regular violence from the left... they punched an old lady"... "2 Minnesota GOP candidates attacked and punched"... the facts: A Minnesota republican claims to have been punched while at dinner... no pictures, just a claim of assault... Fox News never even said the attacker was a leftist, liberal, or any of that, so I can safely assume he was not since they 100% would have mentioned it if he was... http://www.fox9.com/news/two-minnesota-gop-candidates-say-they-were-attacked-punchedThe woman claiming to be attacked... was attacked by a self-proclaimed anarchist... also not a leftist, liberal, or whatever http://www.fox9.com/news/two-minnesota-gop-candidates-say-they-were-attacked-punchedI also checked on your claim that "ricin" was sent to several prominent GOP figures... this is false too... a "threat" of sending ricin was sent... nothing dangerous was actually sent by this guy... he sent a letter with some ground up beans in it, not deadly ricin... facts matter when you claim assassination attempts https://www.dailywire.com/news/37684/utah-man-charged-sending-ricin-white-house-emily-zanottiYou want to nitpick on whether these bombs were assembled or not... but you don't even bother to fact-check your own claims about ricin vs powdered beans... come the fuck on man... show some intellectual honesty Cool story bro. Convenient you can write it all off. What about the years of violent attacks before just this month? You can attribute attacks on the left to the right and even specific people on the right, but when the right is attacked we need "proof" huh? I like the touch of calling the "ricin" a "threat", but these nonfunctional props are "bombs" and he is a "bomber" in spite of nothing even exploding or even appearing to have been the intent (again not justifying it, just a fact). It is almost like you see your own hypocrisy then directly accuse me of exactly the dissonance you are experiencing, before I even directly point it out, in order to force a 3rd party to experience your own dissonance for you via projection. Nah...couldn't be. Wikipedia... that's... that's impressive. You just totally convinced me. FYI, talking about attacks on people because of their politics, not attacks made by people of a certain political bend... but I know any edge you can use to blur the facts you will exploit in a vain attempt to make an argument you don't have. |
|
|
|
|
Tribalism is not limited to religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
