CRed05

Greatest country on earth, can't take in 4000 people. MAGA!

4000 people in this case.

These people are seeking asylum because of violence and being poor. So because you're such a good person, you need to let everyone in from other countries who's facing violence and who is poor. I think that number just gained 3 more zeros.

When it comes to being violent and/or poor, Honduras isn't really high on the list even, compared to some other countries.

So they're lazy, unskilled, and unwilling to work? What are you basing this characterization on?

If you had a business, would you:

1) Hire the first 100 people that knocked on your door, hoping that some of them have skills, aren't creeps, etc.

2) Would you look at their applications, then interview and eventually hire the right candidate(s)?

I bet you'd go with option 2, because option 1 is a disaster and you're setting yourself up for failure.

our response to Islamist terrorism is to lose our collective shit, give our freedom over to the government that we claim to hate, and generally light a pile of money on fire.

Different conversation, but I agree, shit doesn't get dealt with properly.

Show me legislation against white supremacist terrorism the same way the Muslim ban was sold on the back of Islamic terrorism or gun control on the back of Black Nationalism and I'll agree with you. I'll wait while you look for that, might take a while.

This doesn't really have anything to do blaming whitey for terrorism. Kinda smells like an aboutism. I wasn't a fan of the muslim ban, in my eyes it's a waste of time with a sprinkle of bigotry. I say a sprinkle because as we've discussed, muslims do like to commit terror against western nations.

Not for nothing, but I actually clicked on the GAO report in your link. Your numbers are wrong and I don't feel like fixing them. There are duplicate offenders, eg of the 23 attacks by Islamists, a full 15 of them are the DC beltway sniper. So that's like, 2 guys for like 2/3rds of your attacks alone. 2 of the attacks are the tsaernev brothers, and 3 of the attacks are "related" but it doesn't say if it's the same guy.

I just copied them straight from the article. I also mentioned that let's just assume each attack was by a different person.

I don't know what the number is, but the Islamic number needs to be pretty low to equal the white %.

If it was 1 out of 3.5 million, I still think that's more per capita. Where the math guys at?

You seem to be missing that the crucial point that these white terrorists are committing their acts because america isn't more white. It's not a political ideology, they aren't sending bombs or lynching people over the deficit, racism is at the core of their motivation for hurting/killing people.

 

Don Lemon gets it, why don't you?

What does that have to do with anything? Every terrorist has their reason why they're doing it, whether it's race, religion...who cares? And if you think race isn't a factor for non-whites, you better wake up.

How about we try to use some rhetoric that is often used against minorities in this country - the white community should take more responsibility for their people and do something to prevent this kind of activity. I mean if the black community has to take responsibility for it's people why do whites get a pass?

 

Honestly this conversation is stupid, but I didn't think it was possible to have a dumber take on it than dismissal through being ambivalent about it and rationalizing it through numbers. bravo for going under that bar.

No one gets a pass.

You're going to sit there and tell me when 106 people were killed in 62 attacks by far-right extremists (who are sometimes white), and 119 people were killed in 23 attacks by Islamist, that white people have a terrorist problem?

I got those numbers from the article I shared above. These are the numbers Lemon shared too.

Let's break that down. For argument's sake, let's say that each attack was one individual.

US Population:

325 million total

1.1% Muslim = 3.5 million

72% white = 234 million.

So 23 out of 3.5 million Muslims are terrorists, but 62 out of 234 million whites are terrorist. Again, tell me whites have a terrorist problem.

You're right, this conversation is stupid, but you don't understand why it's stupid.

eh...except in this instance, historically it hasn't mattered who politically is in power because these things were tied to an ideology that has migrated from one party to the other.

The point is America is full of whites.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/10/31/cnn-host-don-lemon-said-white-men-are-biggest-terror-threat-this-country/?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_term=.fc692d8e5b2c

from 2008 to 2016, there were almost twice as many terrorist incidents carried out on U.S. soil by right-wing extremists — many of whom are white — than by Islamist extremists.

ALMOST twice as many from right wing extremists, MANY of whom are white.

Well fuck me...seems like non-whites are doing more than their share of the terrorizing.

That angered some people. But let’s put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming.

Yeah, let's mention some cold, hard facts and see who starts crying racism first. Idiot.

majority of domestic terrorists being extremist right white males.

Well the US is ~80% white ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here, I made a template:

majority of domestic terrorists in [insert country name] are extremist [political side that's not in power] [majority race in country] males.

eh....maybe....remember the republicans hold the power in both the house and senate, , and they have both underwritten the current executive administration's decision to do this, as well as been slow to act in response (or not at all).

Nobody wants kids in cages, but how do you deal with this issue? You can't just come into any country you want. Like Tim said, we can't just release them into the US. Either you come in here legally like everyone else or GTFO and go back to your country.

I'm arguing that Democrats who want to stop putting children in cages on the border are doing so because it's the right thing to do, and not because they think it will keep them in power. Brandon apparently disagrees, and thinks that every Democrat doesn't actually care about any issue.

Ah. Well I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't think most people want to see kids in cages, regardless of political views. Democrats are using it as a political tool, sure, as would republicans if the shoe was on their foot.

What are we even arguing here?

I'm arguing that we don't need to change immigration laws, they're fine the way they are. Are you (greg & geeto) proposing we loosen the laws? We need to let more people in? Lower the standards? Let in any Tom, Dick and Jose who wants in?

Is this not correct?

 

I know there's a lot of BS information out there and people think that illegal immigrants are just lazy scoflaws when the reality is that most of them have no way to legally immigrate, but the US does accept an awful lot of immigrants compared to other countries. Can we agree that this is a true fact?

So they say in that link how they came to that conclusion:

"We looked at the data in two ways for 2013: First, the sheer number of legal immigrants and secondly, the number of new immigrants as a percentage of the population."

Everyone and their uncle wants to immigrate to America. I'd like to know the percentage of people who want to come here before they realize they won't be able to. Then the people who actually apply and get denied vs the ones that actually get accepted.

So speaking from personal experience, most South Africans you'll see are either in Australia, New Zealand, UK or Canada. Why? Because these countries make it easy for you to do so, they offer incentives and will help you. From what I've heard, Canada is the easiest because they want more people, they are very underpopulated. A quick visit to their website, they'll let you in under "self employment"

This website tells you exactly all the way you can immigrate to the US. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate.html

There are basically 2 ways to get here, through family or work. Work is probably the hardest because you need to get a company to stick their neck out for you...you better be skilled. Family is easier, but unless it's your spouse, it's a lengthy and slow process. I went through the sibling green card process to get my sister here. It takes about 10 years before she will be eligible to apply for a green card, and for countries with more applicants it will take even longer.

also the Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Russians (esp Jews escaping persecution of the czar), people escaping the constant warring of eastern europe, And let's not forget those whose boat ride was paid for against their will (yes I mean slaves who were Indonesian, African, pacific islander, etc..), and those who were sent here from other British and Dutch colonies because they were criminals there (1/4 of all immigrants to the US in the mid-late 1700s were transport convicts). I mean, is there a group you think didn't emigrate here? Also there are also those central and south americans who just walked here because, well California was part of their country for a good long while, and even when it wasn't we didn't exactly stop free movement.

Drop in the bucket compared to the other immigrants. With that being said...America isn't exactly the country with the lowest crime rates out there either. The data also exists to see which groups commit most of the crimes. Hint: They either got free rides or they walked here.

And it's not a "bit of coin" - the cost of steerage class on ships in the 1800's cost about $670 per person. Most poor people could raise that amount (and did).

$670 in today's money or back then? Either way, that's a lot of money for a person that is poor. I stand by my comment, it's another way to separate some of the...less productive.

$670 in 1800 would be $13,423.34 today according to a calculator I found online.

Care to name some of these "greatest" countries?

Germany, Japan...probably every Scandinavian country. These are countries with low crime rates too.

Edit: Yup, your last link talks about it. They are "criticized" for their strict policies, but like I said, these are fantastic places to live. You can criticize me all you want, but I'm not letting everyone drive my 250 GTO.

But America, which does indeed have some of the least restrictive immigration laws on the planet, has historically done very, very well during a time period where it accepted a lot of immigrants. That seems like a compelling anecdote. I know a lot of people think that it's just a given that we need "laws, tough laws" on immigration, but I reject the premise. There's no evidence that we're anywhere close to a dangerous immigration level as far as I know. And don't we want to make policy based on evidence?

:dumb::dumb::dumb:

I stopped reading after that because the US has probably THE strictest laws out there.

You country of birth was fucked since the first Dutch colonists set foot on it in 1652. Yeah it mishandled the "un-fucking" in the 1980's but give it time - the mishandling of the "un-fucking" of this country happened over 100 years ago and we are still dealing with it's effects. These things take time.

Well SA tried to do it all too quickly. Instead of letting these things heal over time, they wanted to speed it along with things like BEE aka Affirmative Action. So you get unqualified people in high positions that have bankrupted just about all State Owned Entities.

Here's the latest gem that went viral. The head of IT at SARS (IRS equivalent).

Bring these geniuses over, maybe she can be the head of IT at the IRS. She has a very impressive resume. University degree that she probably worked really hard for.

So...just so I am clear....NOBODY wants to talk about how US foreign policy has made both the US steel industry and the US automotive industry noncompetitive in the world market and that is somehow winning?

Nothing to say about that other than, yup, dumb move.

Um...never. People have been immigrating here for over 400 years and it hasn't happened yet. 1882 was the first immigration exclusion act, so historically speaking this is a relatively young issue.

 

Oh and let's not forget that the US was a prison colony for England for roughly 100 years (1607 to 1780). That's 50,000 convicted felons mostly in the mid 1700s.

 

this idea that the US is going to go to shit after 400 years of proving that immigration actually improves the country is literally the nonsense of republican nightmares.

It wasn't exactly an immigration free for all, was it? Who immigrated here? Brits, Germans, Irish, Italians...westerners. It also takes a bit of coin to be able to afford a boat ride here, so that separated some of the wheat from the chaff.

I'm all for immigration, I'm an immigrant for fucks sake, but there needs to be laws, tough laws. Some of the greatest countries in the world when it comes to healthcare, standards of living and happiness has the strictest immigration laws in the world.

"I want people to have health insurance and not to be thrown in jail because they wanted to leave a horrible country" without being accused of being a partisan hack?! I just want to be nice to people and reduce the suffering in the world.

Don't we all. Free lunch and Lamborghini's for everyone too!

If we let everyone from those "horrible" countries in, how long will it be before the US turns into another one of those horrible countries? My country of birth managed to fuck everything up in 10-15 years, can that record be beaten?

still waiting for a credible news source to actually report on it. so far all you have is one anonymous twitter post and every right wing loon pontificating on it.

 

You know something is suspect when even fox news won't touch it. I think Laura Ingraham even said this was bunk.

 

If you are getting your news from places like "americanthinker.com", "zerohedge.com" or "thegatewaypundit.com" - chances are you are the problem and not Booker.

The accuser is also accusing Twitter of shadow banning his Tweets.

https://twitter.com/TheeDeepThroat/status/1054405202390876160

Hypocrisy is strong with this one. An accuser steps forward and now we want to see more evidence. For Kavanaugh the accusers word was enough though.

Yes, #metoo means we have to throw all logic and reason out the window, and treat fake sounding anonymous twitter posts the same as all other accusations.

What happened to believe all accusers?

Or is it implying that us liberal soy-boy beta faggot cucks aren't actually thinking for ourselves and are just following along with society's programming?

That's my understanding of the meme.

Does Trump really think he's a svelte 180?

Trump knows that Kanye likes 'em thicc

http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/91/88/de7132b11bef832f8a1c58ffb52320b2-2.jpg

Biggest rivalry in all of sport

:dumb:

Adorable.