Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The SJW thread The SJW thread

02-03-2017 , 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I understand your confusion, not really... while you are normally a pretty good poster, you seem willfully obtuse on this subject. There are posters in the Milo thread who call Milo a fascist worthy of violence, and who celebrate the cancellations of his speeches and the violent protests like those at the various state schools that have proved to be a sort of "hecklers" veto. These are good examples of illiberal beliefs and behaviors of "SJWs", and also very clearly counterproductive action that helps lift up a trollish provocateur like Milo to gain hundreds of thousands of followers. That's the sort of free advertising Trump thrived on throughout the election season.
I wasn't denying that there are illiberal elements on the left. I was pointing out that the people in this thread seem to think about these illiberal elements in a conspiratorial way. They ascribe a great deal of shadowy power and influence to them, they speculate about the physical and mental characteristics of SJWs, SJWs are claimed to have comically evil motivations, people are supposed to just "see" that SJWs are bad, and if they don't it's because they are blind, and so on.
02-03-2017 , 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
You outed yourself with the obama equals trump nonsense.

When clear evidence proved you wrong, you couldnt even acknowledge it. You just kept it moving onto next attack and talking point.

If you want an honest convo, then admit when your point has been debunked with facts.
You think that pointing out similar policy positions between two presidents makes me ... a white supremacist?

Are you insane?
02-03-2017 , 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
I wasn't denying that there are illiberal elements on the left. I was pointing out that the people in this thread seem to think about these illiberal elements in a conspiratorial way. They ascribe a great deal of shadowy power and influence to them, they speculate about the physical and mental characteristics of SJWs, SJWs are claimed to have comically evil motivations, people are supposed to just "see" that SJWs are bad, and if they don't it's because they are blind, and so on.
No, no, you've got all this wrong.

We know that most SJWs are just a bunch of silly teenagers with keyboards.
02-03-2017 , 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
No, no, you've got all this wrong.

We know that most SJWs are just a bunch of silly teenagers with keyboards.
Okay.
02-03-2017 , 05:28 AM
Lord, remember that you posted a link trying to say that Obama had a similar travel ban to Trump and in the second sentence it refuted your claim, then you proceeded to double down on your claim after a wealth of sources were thrown at you?
02-03-2017 , 05:30 AM
Let's say I was 100% wrong about that, I'm a white supremacist for saying it?
02-03-2017 , 05:36 AM
Maybe we could skip the stage where we try to read your mind and you tell us why:
you brought it up when it was false
you repeatedly disagreed that it was false in the face of overwhelming evidence

If you have a valid answer, we can work it out.
02-03-2017 , 05:38 AM
Obama did do the same thing in 2009 when he banned Iraqi travel for six months.

It appears I may have got some details wrong on the Iran visa deal last year, but it was a policy similar in spirit to what Trump has done. If not in exact wording.
02-03-2017 , 05:44 AM
No, it wasn't nearly the same. It also wasn't in 2009. It was no way similar in spirit. No one was ever banned.

Quote:
This is wrong in every particular. Obama’s Iraqi visa policy in 2011 did not ban Iraqis from entering the country. Obama’s immigration policy did not treat people with passports from the seven countries as unusually dangerous terrorism threats. And Obama’s policies never approached anything like the breadth, cynicism, and incompetence of Trump’s executive order.
Quote:
In May 2011, two Iraqi refugees were arrested in Kentucky on terrorism charges, the only two Iraqi refugees ever linked to terror. The FBI found something worrying: fingerprints from one of the arrested refugees, Waad Ramadan Alwan, on a roadside bomb in Iraq.

This suggested there was a very specific flaw in America’s refugee screening process: Databases of fingerprints from Iraqi militants Iraq were not well-integrated into the broader State Department–run refugee admissions process. As a result, the Obama administration initiated a new review of all roughly 57,000 Iraqis refugees who had been recently admitted into the United States.

According to congressional testimony given in September 2011 by then–Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, all of these admitted refugees were “revetted against all of the DHS databases, all of the NCTC [National Counter Terrorism Center] databases and the Department of Defense’s biometric databases.” Going forward, Napolitano explained, new Iraqi refugees who wanted to enter the United States would be subjected to the same scrutiny.

Getting all of this in place was extremely time-consuming and labor-intensive, and the rate of Iraqi refugee entry into the United States slowed dramatically for the six months it took to finish the review.
Please, tell me how that is the same.
Can you do basic research?
Can you stop lying all the time?
02-03-2017 , 05:53 AM
You are a partisan shill.

I am neutral.

It was a ban.
02-03-2017 , 05:57 AM
That is an extremely great rebuttal of evidence sir.

Quote:
“While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here,” Jon Finer, an Obama administration official who worked on national security, writes at Foreign Policy.
Quote:
Just to make this crystal clear, let’s place Obama’s policy and Trump’s policy side by side:

Obama: imposes new security checks on Iraqi refugees in response to a specific flaw in the security screening for people from that country, which slows down the admission rate of Iraqi refugees for six months but does not eliminate it.
Trump: Bans all refugees, from every country on Earth, for four months, with no evidence of a specific flaw in the refugee screening process, at a time when there are at least 60 percent more refugees worldwide than there were in 2011.
02-03-2017 , 06:03 AM
All you care about is reinforcing the narrative that Trump is bad and Obama is good.

I care about neither of those narratives. That's why I am not a partisan shill and you are.
02-03-2017 , 06:07 AM
No, I care about the facts. You seem to ignore them while resorting to name calling.
02-03-2017 , 06:12 AM
Let me get this right, when it comes to Obama's policy suddenly you are all about the fine print and the detail.

But when it comes to Trump's you are happy to extrapolate and broaden it out to a "Muslim ban"?

Well?
02-03-2017 , 06:22 AM
I have never used the term Muslim ban. Rudy Guiliani did, and apparently Trump told him to craft such. Spicer called it a ban as well, the day after they denied it was a ban.
02-03-2017 , 07:02 AM
It's a vetting procedure so that the government can have information on who is coming into the country.

I mean, if you care about the facts.
02-03-2017 , 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
You think that pointing out similar policy positions between two presidents makes me ... a white supremacist?

Are you insane?
not sure. your positions seem to align pretty well.

regardless, it doesnt seem that you are interested in an honest debate.
02-03-2017 , 07:23 AM
He got so annoyed yesterday about being called a white supremacist he made a thread asking if black genocide was ok before it was deleted, so ymmv.
02-03-2017 , 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
He got so annoyed yesterday about being called a white supremacist he made a thread asking if black genocide was ok before it was deleted, so ymmv.
Yeah, funny that. People who are not white supremacists getting annoyed about being called white supremacists.

Never heard of that happening before.
02-03-2017 , 07:29 AM
SJWs in the thread literally calling people with whom they disagree white supremacists based on nothing.

They prove our point again and again. Moronic reasoning.
02-03-2017 , 07:29 AM
You think it's normal for when a person is called a white supremacist to surmise about genocide? I personally think it's a weird response, and a more appropriate one would be to condemn violence and persecution against non whites/all races. But, you can certainly go the other way and question if genocide is ok too.

Lord, you said I called you a nazi. I then, asked you now 4 times to show where I did that. Why do you seem so intent to dodge answering this question? I would think a guy like you who spends days of their life making videos about SJW would like to engage in honest conversation and not fall into the stereotypes of the side that you rail against.
02-03-2017 , 07:32 AM
You literally spent a whole day asking me and another poster what we think of black genocide.
02-03-2017 , 07:35 AM
OK That's enough. Everyone move on please. Regular offenders - don't expect any more warnings in this thread
02-03-2017 , 07:36 AM
edited

Last edited by aoFrantic; 02-03-2017 at 07:37 AM. Reason: chez said that's enough posting and lies from Lord
02-03-2017 , 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
Let me get this right, when it comes to Obama's policy suddenly you are all about the fine print and the detail.

But when it comes to Trump's you are happy to extrapolate and broaden it out to a "Muslim ban"?

Well?
Trump said he wanted to ban all Muslims, so it's fair to see his travel ban as part of that wish, especially since only Muslims are banned.

Obama never banned travel from any country, a fact which you still can't seem to grasp for some reason.

      
m