02 Feb 2017, 10:58 pm
feral botanist wrote:
That is the response I recieved from adifferentname when I adsked why the musilm ban did not include the countries where the 9/11 terrorist can from.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
They used it for Trump's botched military action too.
03 Feb 2017, 3:21 am
feral botanist wrote:
That is the response I recieved from adifferentname when I adsked why the musilm ban did not include the countries where the 9/11 terrorist can from.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
No, that's what you chose to infer. I told you Obama was responsible for selecting them.
It's no wonder there are so many "misunderstandings" on this board with all these basic reading comprehension errors.
You're laughing at your own ineptitude.
03 Feb 2017, 4:06 am
03 Feb 2017, 4:09 am
03 Feb 2017, 4:14 am
03 Feb 2017, 4:22 am
03 Feb 2017, 4:50 am
03 Feb 2017, 5:40 am
03 Feb 2017, 5:47 am
Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
That is the response I recieved from adifferentname when I adsked why the musilm ban did not include the countries where the 9/11 terrorist can from.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
No, that's what you chose to infer. I told you Obama was responsible for selecting them.
So what? That's not an argument for the policy. There has been no demonstration or argument that it is actually "keeping us safe". It seems political to me.
03 Feb 2017, 5:56 am
03 Feb 2017, 6:23 am
marshall wrote:
Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
That is the response I recieved from adifferentname when I adsked why the musilm ban did not include the countries where the 9/11 terrorist can from.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
No, that's what you chose to infer. I told you Obama was responsible for selecting them.
So what? That's not an argument for the policy. There has been no demonstration or argument that it is actually "keeping us safe". It seems political to me.
It was a direct response to a question. I'm going to have to lead you through this by the nose, aren't I?
Very well. Here's that response in full, along with the question I was responding to.
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
If the ban is meant to protect us, why does it not ban people from the countries where the 9/11 terorists where from?
Trump's administration is apparently working from intel provided by Obama's administration to the DHS. The countries in question were categorised as "countries of concern" by Obama. Trump is acting on information about current, extant threats rather than against countries which previously posed one.
Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.
From this, you both seem to have come to the conclusion that I was drawing an equivalence between the two Presidents, as supported by the response in which feral wrote a short list of actions undertaken by the Obama administration which, from context, he is presumably in favour of:
feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.
Thats the best rational you can supply?
"Obama selected the countries"
Lets run with this.
Obama did...
ACA
Supported LGBTQ rights
Proposed Merick Garland for SCOTUS
Stopped DAPL
Shall I continue.
I suggest you go back and read my sports analogy and cogitate on how it may or may not apply to yourself.
03 Feb 2017, 6:29 am
03 Feb 2017, 6:41 am
03 Feb 2017, 6:47 am
adifferentname wrote:
marshall wrote:
Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
That is the response I recieved from adifferentname when I adsked why the musilm ban did not include the countries where the 9/11 terrorist can from.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
I actually laugh out loud when I read that.
No, that's what you chose to infer. I told you Obama was responsible for selecting them.
So what? That's not an argument for the policy. There has been no demonstration or argument that it is actually "keeping us safe". It seems political to me.
It was a direct response to a question. I'm going to have to lead you through this by the nose, aren't I?
Very well. Here's that response in full, along with the question I was responding to.
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
If the ban is meant to protect us, why does it not ban people from the countries where the 9/11 terorists where from?
Trump's administration is apparently working from intel provided by Obama's administration to the DHS. The countries in question were categorised as "countries of concern" by Obama. Trump is acting on information about current, extant threats rather than against countries which previously posed one.
Whether the intel is accurate or fair is certainly up for debate, but Trump cannot be criticised for selection criteria dating back to 2015.
They are "countries of concern" for travelers entering because jihadist groups tend to recruit foreign nationals from all over. Stopping potential jihadists from traveling to these countries to participate in jihadist insurrections is entirely different than preventing terrorists attacks on US soil.
Terrorists willing to attack the US would be unlikely to fly directly to the US out of one those countries. The policy also doesn't stop terrorists of other nationalities. It just doesn't seem effective at all. It has encumbered plenty of completely innocent people though... people treated as if they are guilty of a crime merely for being born of a certain nationality.
03 Feb 2017, 10:54 am
adifferentname wrote:
EzraS wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
The alt-right is about as punk rock as is trump.
Punk is about being antiestablishment.
You guy have DC, contradictary terms.
Punk is about being antiestablishment.
You guy have DC, contradictary terms.
Trump actually did run a pretty punk rock campaign; DIY, anti-establishment, f*ck the man, loud and crass but effective, it's all there.
Prepare to be contradicted without hesitation.
Ever notice how sports fans are often unwilling to listen to an objective analysis of why their team lost, instead go with "the other team are cheating b******s, the ref is clearly colluding, the whole system is corrupt"?
LOL that's a very apt analogy.
Thanks. I was discussing football with a friend earlier and something she said struck a chord.
It's really telling that Raptor, who has been all but labelled a Nazi by some posters, was the one who recognised I was trying to be objective in my analysis of the Alt-Right in the "Our New President" thread. I think it would be fair to say that objective vs biased, rather than "left" vs "right", is the the primary factor in a large percentage of PPR spats, and that it's an "omnipartisan" issue.
Do you actually read the things you write?
03 Feb 2017, 11:00 am
feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
EzraS wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
The alt-right is about as punk rock as is trump.
Punk is about being antiestablishment.
You guy have DC, contradictary terms.
Punk is about being antiestablishment.
You guy have DC, contradictary terms.
Trump actually did run a pretty punk rock campaign; DIY, anti-establishment, f*ck the man, loud and crass but effective, it's all there.
Prepare to be contradicted without hesitation.
Ever notice how sports fans are often unwilling to listen to an objective analysis of why their team lost, instead go with "the other team are cheating b******s, the ref is clearly colluding, the whole system is corrupt"?
LOL that's a very apt analogy.
Thanks. I was discussing football with a friend earlier and something she said struck a chord.
It's really telling that Raptor, who has been all but labelled a Nazi by some posters, was the one who recognised I was trying to be objective in my analysis of the Alt-Right in the "Our New President" thread. I think it would be fair to say that objective vs biased, rather than "left" vs "right", is the the primary factor in a large percentage of PPR spats, and that it's an "omnipartisan" issue.
Do you actually read the things you write?
Do you intend to raise a specific objection, or are you just going to continue trolling?
