Trump versus Clinton?

[scoobysnack]

You were complaining that I used the term xenophobic in response to Kusa suggesting Sterben leave the country. That comment from Sterben, is what Kusa was referring to.  Burkas and sharia law have nothing to do with it. They are a non sequitur you introduced.  How you got to  burkas without foriegn paranoia is beyond me.  Perhaps you can explain the connection?

       I'm a bit confused by that as well, I stated that adopting some concepts from other systems of government would be a good idea. This was a argument between Kusa and I that went into a completely different area some how. I understand that being xenophobic is a major problem from these "I love America and we find it offense if you mock our flag" types is causing a lot of problems. Can we be adults and just admit America is not number in the world? The evidence is everywhere you look, what were doing is wrong to people from the middle east. If anyone stopped and thought about it they would agree, were just making more problems then necessary. A simple solution would be leave these people alone, and get out of there lands. That's what they want in the long run is to be left alone. So can we all take step back and agree to leave the middle east alone?

To be honest, now I'm confused. Sorry for derailing your discussion.

[Brian37]

Sure because in the people confuse national identity with race. So when they hear the term Chinese, they think Chinese people, instead of the Chinese nation, or Mexico with Mexicans. They are nationalities, not races. Latinos, and Asians would be considered races, but even then, there is no race but the human race. It's just a divide and conquer technique used. I used to be a leftist, and consider myself liberal, but now liberal means something different. They are not the true Jeffersonian liberals like the founding father, they are aligned with Marxism, and classism, so everything has been inverted, and just like Satan, it's inverted to the point that we have the morons walking around saying it's racist to be against a religion, or now sexist to be against transgendered. It's always about being against something. Their isn't the uniting of people, except uniting the underclass against the upper class. The word human or people doesn't exist in the left anymore, because they gain their power by pitting groups against eachother. And to be honest, that has been done throughout history. Tribalism, has moved towards nationalism, and then we have globalism. With globalism, we have people that want to divide and conquer however, so it's almost like forcing a sorority to have a male member.

          How is sexist to be anti-transgender? That makes no sense, some people are just uncomfortable around those types. Being uncomfortable does not make you sexist. If your blood line is primarily _______ that's what you are no matter country you live in. How does Satan play a role in your argument?

Not sexist, but bigoted. Do you really think most male to female or female to male transgendered look to assault you in a bathroom? "Those types"......... How is your fear of them their problem? How many have you known personally?

Sexual assault is primarily committed by men on females and most of that does not happen in a bathroom in any case. Men and women share bathrooms with gays and lesbians all the time, and how would you know just by looking what their sexuality is? Transgender does not make someone automatically attracted to you nor does it mean they will assault you. And what the fuck does bloodline have to do with a person's sexual identity?

[Sterben]

       I'm a bit confused by that as well, I stated that adopting some concepts from other systems of government would be a good idea. This was a argument between Kusa and I that went into a completely different area some how. I understand that being xenophobic is a major problem from these "I love America and we find it offense if you mock our flag" types is causing a lot of problems. Can we be adults and just admit America is not number in the world? The evidence is everywhere you look, what were doing is wrong to people from the middle east. If anyone stopped and thought about it they would agree, were just making more problems then necessary. A simple solution would be leave these people alone, and get out of there lands. That's what they want in the long run is to be left alone. So can we all take step back and agree to leave the middle east alone?

To be honest, now I'm confused. Sorry for derailing your discussion.

         It's ok Scooby, yes we can leave the middle east alone. I think of it this way, we spent how much money over there already? No one really knows, and our military budget is over bloated as it is. Oil prices are at a record low and the damage alone the western world as done, I'm not shocked at all that groups like ISIS exists. If we were to do a full withdrawal from the region we would not only be saving lives we be saving a lot of money as well. What could we do with all that money that would of been used for bombings, and troops? Oh, improveing American infrastructure would be a big start. We could be modern, have better mass transit and be able to get the help the Vets need so badly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The reeducation camps through labor, basically were meant to break peoples will so they learned who was in charge, thus reeducating them to the way they were desired to obey.

You missed the point. The NKVD, OGPU, and KGB didn't give a shit about "re-education". The camps weren't meant to teach anything. Those camps were the state's way of seizing a portion of the labor pool and directing it where it wanted.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You sound like Trump. Excellent.

Well, you'd better not start sucking my cock like you do his, I don't swing that way.

Go get emotional about your ere -- uh, election somewhere else. You're not nearly as funny as you think you are.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, we cant, nor should we. Now that is not to say we should have wars every five years, but to let a region of the world that is still living in it's own dark ages .

It isn't our job to impose our culture, especially at gunpoint. What do you think aroused their anger against us in the first place, if not our meddling?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[Minimalist]

Bill Maher - New Rules - last night.

[Brian37]

No, we cant, nor should we. Now that is not to say we should have wars every five years, but to let a region of the world that is still living in it's own dark ages .

It isn't our job to impose our culture, especially at gunpoint. What do you think aroused their anger against us in the first place, if not our meddling?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

First off ditch the word "culture", that is simply another code word religion hides behind along with "ethnic" and "race" to avoid scrutiny of bad ideas. Secondly no, it is not our job to be the world's police or have a dominion attitude. I think you missed the part where I agreed with you on that part. You are making arguments to things I am not arguing.

What you miss is that you cant simply ignore the world, reality does not work like that. Different groups do not live in separate galaxies. This is still the same planet. And unfortunately humans en mass have certain ideas that are divisive and harmful, and those ideas when held by enough people, do get political, and those people have weapons. 

No, do not ask me to ignore religion globally, and when I say globally, that includes locally and the attempts of our right  wing infecting politics to the degree we react by harming their groups in which not all are aggressors, IE Bush's lie that got not only our soldiers needlessly killed, but 10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians as well.

And you also hurt innocent people stuck in those places that DO want to catch up with the west. Like Malala and this lady. 

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/10/...n-affleck/

And those stuck in those states who have no voice who don't have the opportunity to escape like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Nor do you give confidence to these people who were stuck living under bad ideas.

https://www.facebook.com/exmna/?fref=ts

You are not going to frame life in an "all or nothing" narrative. Reality isn't as simple as that. While isolationist sounds nice on paper, it cannot be done in reality. And the same can be said with bad ideas locally too, if we ignored the cries of Susan B Anthony, or Martin Luther King Jr, or gays, we would still be living in a very oppressive past.

You are trying to equate that statement to the bullshit attitude Ann Coulter has "We should invade their countries an force them to convert to Christianity", which is NOT my argument.

I don't want America to take over the world, but no, if some individual, or group pick up a holy book, and uses it to justify harm to me it is absurd to think we should not respond. The only argument that is valid is to what degree, and that is where our long term policies have sucked since WW2. 

Saying "don't do anything" is as much as a utopia as "take over the world". Life is messy and you cant always frame it in simple solutions.

[abaris]

What do you think aroused their anger against us in the first place, if not our meddling?

That being the critical point. It's creating a patriotic surge that can be used for any intents and purposes.

[paulpablo]

I am not afraid of Sharia Law or a global takeover of Islam, but it is not something to be ignored anymore than any other religion, and right now it is still on average still more stuck in a theocratic past than the west, which has had benefit of secular law as a leash on it.

You have to put things into proportion. One thing, our media never does. Two days ago, it was Brussels. Terrible, and the outrage is more than justified. But in other news, today another suicide bomber blew himself up in Bagdad, claiming as many lives. That's not Islam or muslims waging war on the West. That's backwards sects waging war on everyone not fitting their bill of perfection. Terror is a daiily phenomenon in the Middle East. Only we don't take note, unless it's in our comfort zone. It simply doesn't interest us or our media. The majority of victims still are fellow muslims. So it's kind of blaming the victims when someone pulls out the broad brush to say, it's Islams or muslims. Several, relatively small militias and terrorist organisations are at the core of the problem. And we would be well adivsed if the sane parties were working together instead of just blindly blaming entire groups.

I fail to see how any of your replies relate towards the comments made towards you.

Someone says "A large percentage of Muslims want sharia law."

You say "But sharia won't be put into place".  So what?  That's not the point being made.

Someone says on average Islamic countries are more stuck in the theocratic dark ages than western secular societies which have benefited from relative enlightenment.

Your reply is another complaint that the western media didn't report about a bombing in Bagdad as much as the terror attack in Brussels.

Yeh a lot of the victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims, it's because they have to live around other Muslims, and a lot of the time if they decide to change their mind and not become a Muslim it could result in death.